On January 15, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an on-the-spot ruling, formally vacating the previously issued Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against our client and dismissing the applicant’s application for a Preliminary Injunction (PI).

Case Background

The case proceeded at an intense pace with substantial challenges. On January 8, 2026, the applicant filed a lawsuit and simultaneously applied for a TRO ex parte. On January 9, the court granted the TRO ex parte, ordering our client to cease business activities related to the accused products and requiring attendance at a hearing on January 15 to determine whether to issue a Preliminary Injunction to extend the restrictive relief.

Engaged on January 11, Liu Shen (Shenzhen) Office immediately formed a dedicated case team in close collaboration with US law firm Leydig. With Leydig leading the local proceedings and Liu Shen (Shenzhen) Office providing coordinated support, the two sides formulated a comprehensive case response strategy within an extremely tight four-day timeframe. At the hearing on January 15, the team successfully secured a favorable ruling from the court.

Case Highlights

• The TRO in this matter was granted ex parte without prior notice to the opposing party or a prior hearing. Such procedure is reserved only for extreme emergency situations and is relatively uncommon in practice. The team precisely applied U.S. procedural rules, squarely arguing that the applicant’s claim of irreparable emergency harm lacked factual and legal basis, and successfully procured the vacation of the TRO.
• In U.S. intellectual property litigation practice, there is a clear procedural linkage between a TRO and a PI. A TRO is a short-term emergency remedy (generally effective for 14 days, with one possible extension), and its issuance often indicates the court’s preliminary recognition of the applicant’s claim of irreparable harm. Where a TRO has already been granted, a subsequent PI application ordinarily stands a substantially higher chance of being upheld. By dismantling evidentiary deficiencies in the applicant’s core arguments including alleged urgency, the team overcame the court’s inherent deference to the existing TRO, achieving a key breakthrough in defeating the PI application.
• Within merely four days from engagement on January 11 to the hearing on January 15, the team accomplished a full range of critical work: assisting the client in retaining and authorizing the U.S. counsel in a timely manner, sorting out technical materials and sales information of the involved products, formulating hearing strategies considering Sino-U.S. legal differences, and coordinating the strategy and timetable for parallel domestic litigation. Procedurally, Leydig led the local judicial practice, conducted court advocacy, and drafted and submitted legal documents leveraging its on-the-ground experience. Liu Shen (Shenzhen) Office deployed its cross-border practice expertise to oversee parallel litigation strategies, organize key points of related China proceedings, and facilitate seamless cross-border communication. The efficient synergy between the two firms laid a solid foundation for the favorable final outcome.

This successful ruling not only lifted operational restrictions for the client and averted potential losses, but also demonstrates the professional capability of Liu Shen (Shenzhen) Office in handling cross-border IP disputes through seamless collaboration with top-tier international law firms and efficiently resolving complex cross-border controversies. It sets an excellent precedent for enterprises in responding to emergency intellectual property disputes overseas.

Responsible Partners for the Project: AN Zhifei, LIU Zhijie, CHENG Chi