Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 480 views

    BTL v. Schedule A - Exhibit 11 To PI Opposition (132-11)

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Burstein
    The email chain discusses a trademark infringement case between Sterne Kessler law firm and their client BTL Industries against defendants before a US court. AliExpress had frozen defendants' accounts based on a temporary restraining order but will now unfreeze the accounts as the TRO has expired and no preliminary injunction was obtained. Sterne Kessler argues AliExpress should maintain the freeze until the PI motion is decided and that AliExpress has obligations to comply with US court orders. AliExpress maintains it has discretion over complying with US orders and freezing accounts was based on its own infringement findings, not obligation to the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BTL v. Schedule A - Exhibit 11 To PI Opposition (132-11)

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Burstein
    480 views4 pages
    The email chain discusses a trademark infringement case between Sterne Kessler law firm and their client BTL Industries against defendants before a US court. AliExpress had frozen defendants' accounts based on a temporary restraining order but will now unfreeze the accounts as the TRO has expired and no preliminary injunction was obtained. Sterne Kessler argues AliExpress should maintain the freeze until the PI motion is decided and that AliExpress has obligations to comply with US court orders. AliExpress maintains it has discretion over complying with US orders and freezing accounts was based on its own infringement findings, not obligation to the court.

    Original Description:

    Publicly-filed document in a case of public interest.

    Original Title

    BTL v. Schedule A - Exhibit 11 to PI opposition (132-11)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The email chain discusses a trademark infringement case between Sterne Kessler law firm and their client BTL Industries against defendants before a US court. AliExpress had frozen defendants' accounts based on a temporary restraining order but will now unfreeze the accounts as the TRO has expired and no preliminary injunction was obtained. Sterne Kessler argues AliExpress should maintain the freeze until the PI motion is decided and that AliExpress has obligations to comply with US court orders. AliExpress maintains it has discretion over complying with US orders and freezing accounts was based on its own infringement findings, not obligation to the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    480 views4 pages

    BTL v. Schedule A - Exhibit 11 To PI Opposition (132-11)

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Burstein
    The email chain discusses a trademark infringement case between Sterne Kessler law firm and their client BTL Industries against defendants before a US court. AliExpress had frozen defendants' accounts based on a temporary restraining order but will now unfreeze the accounts as the TRO has expired and no preliminary injunction was obtained. Sterne Kessler argues AliExpress should maintain the freeze until the PI motion is decided and that AliExpress has obligations to comply with US court orders. AliExpress maintains it has discretion over complying with US orders and freezing accounts was based on its own infringement findings, not obligation to the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Case 1:23-cv-00673-PTG-JFA Document 132-11 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 16140

    From: Ning Zhang


    To: Lance Johnson
    Subject: FW: 惁┦：⠳⩢：⠳⩢：Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.+BTL Industries, INC.+23-0673+1+AE
    Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 2:11:10 PM
    Attachments: image001.png

    From: IPR-USTRO <[email protected]>


    Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:44 PM
    To: Ning Zhang <[email protected]>
    Subject: 惁┦ϸ⠳⩢ϸ⠳⩢ϸSterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.+BTL Industries, INC.+23-
    0673+1+AE

    Please see the email chain. Communication and negotiation between you two parties maybe the best way to
    solve this problem.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    ⋐᷵ᶹ漡IPR-USTRO <[email protected]>
    ⋐开㓵擳漡2023⵳11㘇3㓤(㔞㘞ᶓ) 17:27
    㐵᷵ᶹ漡Jamie P Hanly <[email protected]>
    ㆃȺ开漡Monica Riva Talley <[email protected]>; Nicholas J. Nowak
    <[email protected]>; Rien M. Groskopf <[email protected]>
    ᴺȺ林漡◝⠌漡◝⠌漡◝⠌漡Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.+BTL Industries,
    INC.+23-0673+1+AE

    Hi Jamie,

    Please understand that the platform is also under the pressure of the defendants' counsel to unfreeze.
    Besides, it is still plaintiff's obligation to make sure a valid PI order is obtained after TRO
    expires. We have frozen the funds long enough for you to obtain that PI, which you
    failed to do so. All other plaintiff's law firms adhere to this requirements as they
    understand we have no legal obligation to keep freezing the accounts should they failed
    to obtain a PI. Regardless of the reason, it is not our obligation to adjudicate whether
    plaintiff's delay in obtaining the PI is reasonable.

    In addition, the processing fee is for one-time freeze, which we already did. We also
    provided information as requested and stated in the TRO protocol. So even from a
    contractual perspective, we have fulfilled our promise and obligations.

    We understand your worries and will not take unfrozen actions right now, and we will
    forward your freezing request to defendants' counsel. We suggest you to communicate
    with defendants' counsel directly about this case, which will be more efficient. Thanks.

    Best regards,
    AliExpress Team

    Notice: This email (including any attachments) is sent by the AliExpress


    legal department and is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you received this email in error, please
    notify us by reply e-
    mail, delete this message from your system and do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its conten
    Case 1:23-cv-00673-PTG-JFA Document 132-11 Filed 11/15/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 16141

    ts to any other person. Thank you.


    㯧『 : 㘫䐴徭(∄㇫᷺Ṕ敃᷵)䐰⁧䌂弞≕弙㯔↠忧⋐⃹漓〉㘈㘹⫅屃㒘⋉⋮俼⋖㯔⺊Ờㆣȼ⢁攀ᴊ搘
    嫮㐵ℯ㩣䐴徭漓㑫嫶ᷤ䐴徭弙䛤ㄐ⋷漓ᶍ攀ᴊᵊ䯺䷞₄℟散㘫Ỡ⽮漓⋉ᴌ⋮⬅㘫䐴徭⠌≯ㄕ䐧ṛ᷺
    Ṕ䐧弓ㄕ⫸᷺Ṕᶹ⟪弎昱㘫徭᷵ᵊ₄⪸ȼ⠙嬡⌇ṛ!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    ⋐᷵ᶹ漡Jamie P Hanly <[email protected]>
    ⋐开㓵擳漡2023⵳11㘇3㓤(㔞㘞ᶓ) 03:31
    㐵᷵ᶹ漡IPR-USTRO <[email protected]>
    ㆃȺ开漡Monica Riva Talley <[email protected]>; Nicholas J. Nowak
    <[email protected]>; Rien M. Groskopf <[email protected]>
    ᴺȺ林漡RE: ◝⠌漡◝⠌漡Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.+BTL Industries,
    INC.+23-0673+1+AE

    Dear AliExpress Team,

    We understood that AliExpress was going to keep the accounts frozen until the preliminary
    injunction motion is decided. As you are aware, this motion is before the court and should be
    decided shortly. While it has taken longer than expected, we note that these delays are in
    large part based on Defendants’ failure to respond to our preliminary injunction motion and
    Defendants’ request for an extension the night before the hearing. At the hearing, the
    Defendants’ lawyers confirmed with the judge that they needed the requested two-week
    extension of time so that they could file an opposition, which they did. They also failed to file
    an answer to the complaint until weeks after the original due date. We provided them with
    an additional extension to do that as well. As you know, Defendants have known about this
    matter for months now and any further delays in the resolution of the preliminary injunction
    motion are a result of their actions, not Plaintiff’s.

    We also understand that AliExpress takes the position that it is not obligated to comply with
    U.S. court orders because it is not within the jurisdiction of US courts. Indeed, your Protocol
    for TRO Requests notes, among other things, that you review TROs issued by US courts on a
    “fully discretionary basis.” We also understand that you performed an independent review of
    the seller pages and only froze the seller accounts, not because you were complying with the
    TRO, but because you had independently made a determination that the defendant sellers
    were infringing. You also required and accepted a fee from us of $40 per seller account, for a
    total of nearly $14,000, to institute the freeze. Are you planning on reimbursing the fee if you
    lift the freeze on sellers’ accounts? Clearly, that fee was not required to be paid pursuant to
    the Court order and only confirms the fact that Alipay did not freeze sellers’ accounts as a
    result of the TRO but because of Alipay’s independent assessment of infringement. Indeed,
    Alipay takes a similar position with regard to default judgment orders from US courts and has
    confirmed that it will not comply with them if ordered to release seller assets to plaintiffs. We
    also note that the original TRO issued on June 8 and was served on you on June 14. It was not
    until August 13, over two months later, after multiple delays by Alipay, that the seller
    accounts were frozen. You were under an obligation to freeze seller accounts immediately
    upon receipt of the original TRO. That clearly did not happen and your unreasonable delay
    further confirms Alipay’s complete disregard for US court orders.
    Case 1:23-cv-00673-PTG-JFA Document 132-11 Filed 11/15/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 16142

    To the extent we need to bring these issues up before the Court, we will. And if Alipay
    unfreezes the defendants’ accounts, our client will have no choice but to consider additional
    legal action to establish and confirm the jurisdictional reach of US courts over
    Alibaba/AliExpress/Alipay in order to ensure timely and strict compliance with US court orders
    going forward.

    Accordingly, we ask that AliExpress maintain its original position of keeping the accounts
    frozen pursuant to its own independent assessment of infringement until the preliminary
    injunction motion is decided.

    Kind regards,
    Jamie Hanly
    James (Jamie) Hanly
    Associate, Admitted only in Minnesota
    Supervised by D.C. Bar member Monica Riva Talley
    Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
    Email: [email protected]
    Direct: 202.772.8519 Main: 202.371.2600

    From: IPR-USTRO <[email protected]>


    Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:52 PM
    To: Jamie P Hanly <[email protected]>
    Cc: Monica Riva Talley <[email protected]>; Nicholas J. Nowak
    <[email protected]>; Rien M. Groskopf <[email protected]>
    Subject: ᅇኞ㸸ᅇኞ㸸Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.+BTL Industries, INC.+23-
    0673+1+AE

    EXTERNAL EMAIL: Use caution before clicking links or attachments.

    Hi Jamie,

    Thanks for your notice. Since there is not valid court document ordering the continuous restraint, we
    will unfreeze their assests for now. PLEASE note that ensuring there is a valid court order requiring
    the assests restraint is plaintiff's obligation and failure to obtain so, will put AliExpress at risk. Thanks.

    Best regards,
    AliExpress Team

    Notice: This email (including any attachments) is sent by the AliExpress


    legal department and is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you received this email in error, please
    notify us by reply e-
    mail, delete this message from your system and do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its conten
    ts to any other person. Thank you.
    ὀព : ᮏ䖆惿(ໟᣓ௵ఱ㝃௳)⏤඲⌫㏿⎧恫㴦⋲愹␢≋熂⑼㝚㞋Ⱇ嶕㗪␛⑀兎␨㴦⿜‫‮‬㋵˛⧓晒Ṝ敪
    局㖇⊁㮵䖆惿熂㖽屈ἶ䖆惿恫䠶㉢⑉熂ở晒Ṝஅ⣔估⇖≱暵㝽′ダ熂␛Ṟ⑀ⱗ㝽䖆惿⥞⏁㉧䕹ᾭὌ
    Case 1:23-cv-00673-PTG-JFA Document 132-11 Filed 11/15/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 16143

    ᾦ䕹恥㉧ⱊὌᾦἋ⤼恠枃㝽惿὇ẜ⇖Ⰺ˛⥫屳⑙ᾭ!

    You might also like