MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Plaintiff's ex parte motions [3] [15] [20] are granted, and no appearance is necessary. The plaintiff's written submissions establish that if defendants were informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, assets would likely be redirected, defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping the infringement, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the submitted evidence establishes a likelihood of success on the merits, the harm to plaintiff is irreparable and an injunction is in the public interest because infringement interferes with the plaintiff's ability to control its intellectual property. Those rights cannot be fully compensated by money damages. There is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to communicate with defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to appear and object, the court will take a fresh look at the asset freeze, joinder, and personal jurisdiction. The court finds that security in the amount of $91,000--$1,000 per defendant--is sufficient to secure the injunctive relief. Motion hearing set for 10/30/25 is stricken. Notice mailed by Judge's staff
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Plaintiff's ex parte motions [3] [15] [20] are granted, and no appearance is necessary. The plaintiff's written submissions establish that if defendants were informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, assets would likely be redirected, defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping the infringement, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the submitted evidence establishes a likelihood of success on the merits, the harm to plaintiff is irreparable and an injunction is in the public interest because infringement interferes with the plaintiff's ability to control its intellectual property. Those rights cannot be fully compensated by money damages. There is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to communicate with defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to appear and object, the court will take a fresh look at the asset freeze, joinder, and personal jurisdiction. The court finds that security in the amount of $91,000--$1,000 per defendant--is sufficient to secure the injunctive relief. Motion hearing set for 10/30/25 is stricken. Notice mailed by Judge's staff