Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 41
`
`PATRICK M. RYAN (SBN 203215)
`pryan@bzbm.com
`STEPHEN C. STEINBERG (SBN 230656)
`ssteinberg@bzbm.com
`GABRIELLA A. WILKINS (SBN 306173)
`gwilkins@bzbm.com
`BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
`A Professional Law Corporation
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1900
`Facsimile: (415) 956-1152
`
`Attorneys for CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., CISCO
`TECHNOLOGY, INC. and CIENA
`CORPORATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and CISCO
`TECHNOLOGY, INC., and CIENA
`CORPORATION,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`WUHAN WOLON COMMUNICATION
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. and WUHAN
`WOLON CLOUD NETWORK
`COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORPORATION’S
`EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
`ASSET FREEZE ORDER, EXPEDITED
`DISCOVERY, ORDER AUTHORIZING
`ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS,
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`Date:
`Time:
`Honorable Judge Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom:
`4
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 41
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................2
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .....................................................................3
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ..............................................................................4
`A.
`Ciena and Its Transceivers .........................................................................................4
`B.
`Counterfeit Ciena Transceivers Are Dangerous .........................................................5
`C.
`Trademarks Used on Ciena Transceivers ...................................................................6
`D.
`Discovery and Testing of Counterfeit Ciena Transceivers ........................................6
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................12
`A.
`The Court Should Issue the Requested Relief Without Prior Notice .......................12
`B.
`The Court Should Grant the Requested Immediate and Preliminary
`Injunctive Relief Barring Further Counterfeiting Activities by Wolon and
`Anyone Associated or Acting in Concert With Them .............................................14
`1.
`Ciena Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits ....................................................15
`2.
`Ciena Will Suffer Irreparable Harm as a Result of Wolon’s
`Activities Without an Injunction ..................................................................18
`The Balance of Equities Favors Ciena .........................................................19
`An Injunction Is in the Public Interest .........................................................19
`At Minimum, Injunctive Relief Is Warranted Because There Are
`Serious Questions Going to the Merits and the Balance of Hardships
`and Other Winter Factors Strongly Favor Ciena ..........................................20
`The Court Should Issue An Order to Freeze Wolon’s Assets, Disable,
`Transfer Control of, and Redirect Wolon’s Seller Identifications and
`Domain Names Used for Counterfeiting, and Bar Access to Listings and
`Other Fulfillment Activities for Sales of Products Using Infringing Marks ............21
`1.
`The Court Should Issue an Order Freezing Wolon’s Assets ........................22
`2.
`The Court Should Issue an Order Freezing, Disabling, Transferring
`Control of, and Redirecting Wolon’s Seller Identifications and
`Domain Names .............................................................................................24
`The Court Should Issue an Order Preventing Fulfillment of Further
`Sales of Wolon’s Products with CIENA Marks ...........................................27
`The Court Should Permit Ciena to Conduct Expedited Discovery ..........................28
`D.
`E.
`The Court Should Authorize Alternative Service of Process ...................................30
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`i
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`3.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 41
`
`F.
`
`The Court Should Not Require Ciena to Post a Bond to Secure the
`Injunctive Relief, or Alternatively, Should Set It at No More Than $10,000 ..........31
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................32
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`ii
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 4 of 41
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions, Inc.
`944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Accuride Int’l, Inc. v. Accuride Corp.
`871 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Align Tech., Inc. v. Strauss Diamond Instruments, Inc.
`No. 18-CV-06663-TSH, 2019 WL 1586776 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) ................................ 31
`
`AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats
`599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Animale Grp. Inc. v. Sunny's Perfume Inc.
`256 F. App’x 707 (5th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 23
`
`Asmodus, Inc. v. Junbiao Ou
`No. EDCV 16-2511 JGB (DTBx), 2017 WL 2954360 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2017) ................. 26
`
`Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.
`174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Carson v. Griffin
`No. 13-CV-0520 KAW, 2013 WL 2403601 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2013) ................................. 30
`
`Chanel, Inc. v. eukuk.com
`No. 2:11-CV-01508-KJD, 2011 WL 6955734 (D. Nev. Dec. 28, 2011) .......................... 25, 26
`
`Chanel, Inc. v. Sunus Online Group, LLC
`No. EDCV 13-2194 JGB (DTBx) 2014 WL 12558780 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) ................. 23
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Tech. Co.
`No. 5:20-CV-04773-EJD, 2020 WL 4196273 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) ........................ passim
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Tech. Co.
`No. 5:20-CV-04773-EJD, 2020 WL 5199434 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) ............................... 2
`
`Cleary v. News Corp.
`30 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills
`321 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 31
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`iii
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 5 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Creative Labs, Inc. v. Cyrix Corp.
`141 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Cuviello v. City of Oakland
`No. C 06-05517 MHP (EMC), 2007 WL 2349325 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2007) ...................... 31
`
`Daimler AG v. A-Z Wheels LLC
`334 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (S.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................... 16
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC
`No. C-11-3619 YGR, 2012 WL 1038752 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) .................................... 30
`
`First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet
`11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir.1993) ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber
`767 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 14, 20
`
`FTC v. Affordable Media
`179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`Gucci Am., Inc. v. Los Altos Boots, Inc.
`No. CV1406680 BRO (AJWx), 2014 WL 12561613 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014)................... 13
`
`Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li
`768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 23, 24
`
`Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang Huoqing
`No. C-09-05969 JCS, 2011 WL 31191 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2011) ............................................ 23
`
`Idaho Potato Comm'n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc.
`425 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Jenkins v. Pooke
`No. C 07-03112 JSW, 2009 WL 412987 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009) ...................................... 30
`
`JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co.
`828 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Johnson v. Couturier
`572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`KP Permanent Make–Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.
`408 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc.
`586 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 15
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`iv
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 6 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Fan Yu Ming
`360 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2019) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc.
`51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft
`887 F. Supp. 1320 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc.
`658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods.
`353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`McLeod v. Hosmer-Dorrance, Inc.
`192 USPQ 683 (N.D. Cal. 1976) ....................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp.
`No. 17-CV-06932-MMC, 2018 WL 6069646 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018) .............................. 31
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Buy More, Inc.
`136 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................... 16
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Goldah.com Network Tech. Co.
`No. 17-CV-02896-LHK, 2017 WL 4536417 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) .......................... 30, 32
`
`Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Zotos Int'l, Inc.
`230 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................................... 20
`
`Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
`339 U.S. 306 (1950) ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`Neighborhood Assistance Corp. v. First One Lending Corp.
`2013 WL 12113414 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2013) ....................................................................... 19
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Wu
`349 F. Supp. 3d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ..................................................................................... 31
`
`Otter Prod., LLC v. Anke Grp. Indus. Ltd.
`No. 2:13-CV-00029-MMD-RJJ, 2013 WL 5910882 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2013) ......................... 26
`
`Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Shalabi
`352 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ................................................................................... 16
`
`Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Baccarat Clothing Co.
`692 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................... 19, 21
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`v
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 7 of 41
`
`
`
`Redwen v. Sino Clean Energy, Inc.
`No. CV 11-3936 PA (SSx), 2013 WL 12303367 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2013) ............................. 23
`
`Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc.
`737 F. Supp. 1521 (S.D. Cal. 1989) .................................................................................. 22, 24
`
`Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc.
`970 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................... 21, 22, 23
`
`Reno Air Racing Ass'n., Inc. v. McCord
`452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos
`862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1988) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink
`284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 30
`
`Sas v. Sawabeh Info. Servs. Co.
`No. CV 11-04147 GAF (MANx), 2011 WL 13130013 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2011) ................ 28
`
`SATA GmbH & Co. Kg v. Wenzhou New Century Int'l, Ltd.
`No. CV 15-08157-BRO (Ex), 2015 WL 6680807 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) ......................... 28
`
`Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.
`208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ............................................................................................ 28
`
`Spy Optic Inc. v. Individuals, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations
`Identified on Schedule A
`No. CV 17-7649 DSF (KSx), 2017 WL 10592133 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017) .......... 25, 27, 28
`
`Sream, Inc. v. Sahebzada
`No. 18-CV-05673-DMR, 2019 WL 2180224 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) ................................ 19
`
`Steinway & Sons v. Robert Demars & Friends
`No. 80-04404 TJH (Mx), 1981 WL 40530 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 1981) .................................... 15
`
`Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co.
`240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Talavera Hair Prod., Inc. v. Taizhou Yunsung Elec. Appliance Co., LTD
`No. 18-CV-823-JLS (JLB), 2018 WL 3413866 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2018) ...................... 13, 27
`
`Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Exp. Co.
`64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`vi
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 8 of 41
`
`
`
`U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc.
`681 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp.
`No. C 12-2582 CW, 2012 WL 2343670 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) ........................... 16, 18, 32
`
`United Tactical Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.
`No. 14-CV-04050-MEJ, 2014 WL 6788310 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2014) ...................... 17, 19, 20
`
`Vineyard House, LLC v. Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc.
`No. 4:19-CV-01424-YGR, 2021 WL 254448 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2021) ............................... 18
`
`Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Friendfinder, Inc.
`No. C06-6572JSW (MEJ), 2007 WL 4973848 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2007) ............................... 25
`
`Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Online Mktg. Servs., Ltd.
`No. C 06-06572 JSW, 2008 WL 596251 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2008) ........................................ 25
`
`Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc.
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) .................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Yee v. NIVS Intellimedia Tech. Group, Inc.
`No. CV 11-8472 JGB (AJWx), 2013 WL 1276024 (C.D. Cal. March 25, 2013) ................... 23
`
`Statutes
`15 United States Code
`§ 1114 .................................................................................................................................. 3, 16
`§ 1114(1) ................................................................................................................................. 15
`§ 1114(2)(D) ............................................................................................................................ 26
`§ 1116(a) ................................................................................................................................. 18
`§ 1117 ...................................................................................................................................... 21
`§ 1125 ........................................................................................................................................ 3
`§ 1125(a) ................................................................................................................................. 16
`§ 1125(a)(1) ............................................................................................................................. 16
`§ 1125(d)(2) ............................................................................................................................. 26
`
`Californa Business and Professions Code
`§ 17200 ................................................................................................................................ 3, 17
`§ 17500 ................................................................................................................................ 3, 17
`
`Court Rules
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Rule 4(f)(3) .............................................................................................................................. 30
`Rule 26(d) ................................................................................................................................ 28
`Rule 65(b) ................................................................................................................................ 12
`
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`vii
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 9 of 41
`
`
`
`Northern District of California Local Rules
`Rule 65-1 ................................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Other Authorities
`Advisory Committee Note on 1993 Amendment .......................................................................... 28
`
`https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-
`judicial-asst/Enforcement-of-Judges.html ............................................................................... 23
`
`https://www.iam-media.com/frandseps/suing-chinese-entity-in-the-united-states-
`expect-two-year-wait-serve-process ........................................................................................ 31
`
`Public Law 116-260 (H.R. 133) – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 ................................. 18
`
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`viii
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 10 of 41
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
`that on __________, 2021, at _________ [a.m.]/[p.m.] (or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
`heard) before the Honorable Judge Edward J. Davila, in Courtroom 4 of the above-entitled
`courthouse, located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113, Plaintiff Ciena
`Corporation (“Ciena”) will and hereby does move ex parte for a Temporary Restraining Order
`(“TRO”) and, upon its expiration, a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Defendants Wuhan Wolon
`Communication Technology Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Wolon Cloud Network Communication
`Technology Co., Ltd. (together, “Wolon”) from continuing to offer for sale, sell, and distribute
`counterfeit Ciena transceivers in the United States and/or continuing to use the CIENA Marks in
`connection with offering and selling transceivers. Ciena also seeks an order freezing Wolon’s
`assets, disabling their online presence, and barring access to their listings and fulfillment of further
`sales. Ciena also seeks expedited discovery so it can identify all channels through which Wolon is
`manufacturing and distributing counterfeit Ciena products and locate all of Wolon’s unlawfully
`gained assets. In addition, Ciena seeks an order authorizing alternative service of process by email,
`as email service is not prohibited and is reasonably calculated to provide notice when Wolon
`operates and does business online, and, further, personal service is presently nearly impossible,
`particularly given travel restrictions within China. This Motion is based on the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the supporting declarations of First Witness, Second
`Witness, and Third Witness,1 and exhibits thereto; all other papers and pleadings on file; and such
`additional arguments and evidence as may be presented to the Court at or before a hearing on this
`Motion.
`
`
`1 Ciena is concurrently seeking leave to file these declarations temporarily under seal in their
`entirety, and then permanently under in part, including sealing the names of these individuals in
`order to preserve the secrecy of other ongoing and future investigations of counterfeiters, and to
`protect the individuals themselves from potential retaliation, particularly cyber-attacks.
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`1
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 11 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Ciena brings this emergency ex parte motion to block dangerous counterfeit transceivers
`from entering the United States market. Ciena brings this Motion against the same counterfeiters
`against whom this Court already issued a TRO and preliminary injunction upon Cisco’s motion.
`The factual and legal bases for both motions and the requested relief are substantially similar, and
`are also substantially similar to earlier motions filed in a related case that were granted by this
`Court. See Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Tech. Co., No. 5:20-CV-04773-EJD, 2020 WL
`4196273 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Tech. Co., No. 5:20-CV-
`04773-EJD, 2020 WL 5199434 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020).
`Ciena is a leading designer and manufacturer of transceivers—devices that transmit and
`receive data—used in public and private networks. Ciena’s key customers include federal and state
`government entities, telecommunications companies, research and education institutions like
`universities and colleges, utility companies, and healthcare centers. Ciena transceivers are a key
`foundational component of the U.S. communications infrastructure. The counterfeit Ciena
`transceivers sold by Wolon pose a serious risk of potential harm to that national infrastructure and
`Ciena’s reputation. Since networks that provide critical services across the U.S. rely on Ciena
`transceivers, the risk of using substandard counterfeit products that may fail is substantial.
`Ciena recently discovered that Wolon was offering potentially fake Ciena transceivers
`online to U.S. customers and, in some cases, offering transceivers they intentionally
`mischaracterized as Ciena-“compatible” with which they also offered to sell fake Ciena labels in
`order to avoid detection by Ciena and law enforcement. Ciena’s consultant purchased Wolon’s
`suspect Ciena transceivers and labels, which they shipped to this District. Ciena analyzed and
`tested these transceivers and confirmed that they were inauthentic, i.e., these products were not
`made by or associated with Ciena despite being passed off to unsuspecting consumers as Ciena
`products. On the outside, Wolon’s transceivers are offered for sale, sold, and shipped with product
`labels with counterfeit CIENA Marks, and are otherwise designed to create the impression that
`
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`2
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 12 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`they are authentic Ciena transceivers. Internally, the transceivers use unapproved, untested, and
`non-genuine parts, and are not subjected to Ciena’s high design, build, and inspection standards.
`Ciena seeks to bar these dangerous counterfeit products from the U.S. by bringing this
`action for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin and advertising
`and dilution under the federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125), and unfair competition and
`false advertising under California law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500).
`Ciena seeks four types of relief, which have been granted by this Court (as well as others
`in this Circuit) in this case and prior counterfeiting actions, in order to promptly stop Wolon from
`selling counterfeit products in the U.S., preserve evidence and the potential to recover any ill-
`gotten gains from past sales, and give notice of this case to Wolon. First, Ciena seeks a TRO and
`preliminary injunction barring Wolon from using the CIENA Marks and selling transceivers and
`labels designed to appear to be Ciena products. Second, to preserve the ability to recover any
`profits Wolon earned from their infringement and maintain the status quo, Ciena seeks an order
`freezing Wolon’s assets, disabling their seller identifications and domain names, and shutting
`down their ability to offer or sell any fake Ciena products online or ship them to U.S. customers.
`Third, Ciena seeks limited expedited discovery to locate and remove from the market any other
`infringing products being sold in the U.S., and locate Wolon’s profits from past sales. Fourth,
`given the difficulty in serving process and risk of extensive delays in China, particularly during
`the COVID-19 crisis, Ciena requests authorization to effect service of process by email.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`II.
`A.
`Should Ciena be permitted to file the motion and should the Court issue the
`requested relief ex parte before notice to Wolon, who is likely to conceal or dispose
`of the counterfeit goods, proceeds, or records if given prior notice?
`Should the Court issue a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why
`a preliminary injunction should not be issued barring further infringing activities by
`Wolon when Ciena has shown it is almost certain to succeed on the merits of its
`claims, it would be irreparably harmed by continued infringement, and the balance
`of equities and public interest also strongly favor injunctive relief?
`Should the Court issue an Order to freeze Wolon’s assets, disable, transfer control
`of, and redirect Wolon’s seller identifications and domain names used to sell
`counterfeit products, and bar access to listings and other fulfillment activities for
`sales of products with infringing marks, to preserve the possibility of all potential
`equitable remedies and prevent further infringement under new names?
`2790.000A/1644812.1
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04272-EJD
`3
`PLAINTIFF CIENA CORP.’S MOTION FOR, AND MPA IN SUPPORT OF, EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO
`AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04272-EJD Document 38 Filed 07/22/21 Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Should the Court issue an Order permitting Ciena to conduct certain narrowly
`focused expedited discovery when they need it to ascertain the full extent of
`Wolon’s infringement and there would be little or no prejudice to Wolon?
`Should the Court authorize alternative service of process on Wolon by email when
`it is not prohibited by international agreement and is reasonably calculated to give
`Wolon notice?
`Should the Court require Ciena to post a bond to secure the requested injunctive
`relief when there is no risk of harm to Wolon from simply being precluded from
`selling counterfeit products?
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`Ciena and Its Transceivers
`A.
`Ciena has been selling networking equipment, including transceivers (“Ciena
`Transceivers”), since 1992. See 7/20/21 Decl. of First Witness (“Decl. No. 1”) ¶ 5. Ciena is a
`national and world leader in developing, designing, manufacturing, and providing
`telecommunications networking equipment, software, and services. Id. Ciena sells and ships over
`300,000 transceivers generating over $300 million in revenue per year. Id.
`Transceivers are electronic devices that transmit and receive data. See 7/9/21 Decl. of
`Second Witness (“Decl. No. 2”) ¶ 7. In basic terms, a transceiver encodes and decodes data by
`converting an electrical signal into light pulses and back again, which are sent through a fiber
`optic cable. Id. Transceivers provide the vital connections in networks. See Decl. No. 1 ¶ 11. The
`quality and performance of networks in the U.S. and around the world depend on authentic and
`high-quality Ciena Transceivers. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Ciena sells a wide-range of transceivers varying in
`size, functionality, and price. See Decl. No. 2 ¶ 7. Ciena designs all of its t