Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

E-NOMADS SRL,

Plaintiff,

v.
Civil No. 2:21cv337
LINGXIAN (GUANGZHOU) TECHNOL-
OGY CO., LTD.,

Defendant.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff E-

Nomads SRL (ECF No. 24) and a Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.

16). For the following reasons, the Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 24) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the Second Motion for Preliminary

Injunction (ECF No. 16) is DISMISSED as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The facts summarized are allegations accepted as true for the purposes of this

Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff E-Nomads SRL (“E-Nomads” or “Plaintiff”) is

a Romanian company that sells textured globe lamps. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for De-

fault J. at 5, ECF No. 25. Its primary products are the 3D Moon Lamp™ and the 3D

Galaxy Lamp™ sold in the Amazon marketplace under its brand, Mind Glowing. Id.

Defendant Lingxian (Guangzhou) Technology Co. Ltd. (“Lingxian” or “Defendant”) is

1
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 376

a Chinese entity that sells a similar 3D Printed Moon Lamp in the Amazon market-

place and other online websites. Id. Lingxian owns U.S. Design Patent D884,252

(“ ’252 patent”) for its 3D moon lamps. Id. As a patent examiner was analyzing the

’252 patent, they distinguished it from a separate design patent for a very similar

moon lamp, Pan U.S. D849, 314 (“ ’314 patent”). Although the two patents were

nearly identical, the patent examiner found the following two differences were pre-

sent: “(a) a zigzag base that is somewhat larger than the diameter of the globe; and

(b) an underside that has a battery compartment door and a set of switches.” Id.; ’252

Patent, ECF No. 25-2. Moreover, there are three separate patents issued internation-

ally that patented otherwise similar moon lamps but encompass textured outer sur-

faces, a single charging port on the bottom, and a small zigzag support base, as op-

posed to a smooth outer surface of the globe. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Default J. at

8–9, ECF No. 25.

The ’252 patent was examined via an ex parte 1 review. Id. at 9. In an Owner’s

Statement provided ahead of this evaluation, Lingxian stated that the ’252 patent is

valid because it encompasses “a sphere with a smooth surface without any minimal-

istic ornamental design”. Id.; see also Lingxian Statement at 4, ECF No. 17-4.

1 An ex parte review is a procedure by which a patent owner or a third party may

Lingxian acknowledged in this statement that any globe lamps that have textured

surfaces are not infringing on its ’252 patent.

Despite this, Lingxian has filed multiple complaints against E-Nomads

through Amazon’s intellectual property infringement reporting system. Mem. in

Supp. of Mot. for Default J. at 9, ECF No. 25. It has filed complaints on the following

dates: September 15, 2020, October 21, 2020, April 29, 2021, May 10, 2021, August 6,

2021 and August 8, 2021. Id. When a seller is accused of intellectual property in-

fringement, the seller’s account is deactivated with no human evaluation and by an

automated program. Id. at 10. E-Nomads’s Amazon seller account was deactivated

due to Lingxian’s complaints that E-Nomads’ textured moon lamps were infringing

on its ’252 patent. Id. Lingxian subsequently filed complaints through Amazon as-

serting that E-Nomads was infringing the ’252 patent by selling the galaxy lamps as

well. Id. E-Nomads states that it has lost $1,176,400 in sales because of the deactiva-

tion of its account. Id.; Olaru Decl. at 3, ECF No. 25-6.

B. Procedural History

E-Nomads filed a Complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on June 15, 2021.

Compl., ECF No. 1. It sought an alternative form of service on Lingxian because it is

a foreign entity. Mot. for Service, ECF Nos. 8 & 9. Lingxian had not, and still has not,

designated a domestic representative for acceptance of service. Id. For these reasons,

3
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID# 378

this Motion was granted, and the Court allowed E-Nomads to serve by 4-week publi-

cation in a newspaper. Order, ECF No. 10.

On July 7, 2021, prior to service being completed. E-Nomads moved for a Tem-

porary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction. TRO Mot., ECF No. 12. This

Court denied both and granted leave to E-Nomads to renew its Motion for a Prelimi-

nary Injunction once service on Lingxian was complete. TRO Order, ECF No. 14. E-

Nomads notified that service via four weeks of publication was complete as of August

2, 2021. Notice of Service, ECF No. 15. It emailed all pleadings in this case to

Lingxian’s patent counsel who is unrelated to this case, as well. Email, ECF No. 15-

1. After E-Nomads notified the Court that service was completed, it renewed its Mo-

tion for Preliminary Injunction. Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 16. This Court deferred

ruling on this Motion and ordered Lingxian to respond on August 13, 2021. Order,

ECF No. 19.

E-Nomads moved the Clerk of this Court for an entry of Default on September

1, 2021. Req. for Default, ECF No. 20. The Clerk filed an Entry of Default on Septem-

ber 2, 2021. ECF No. 21. E-Nomads moves for Default Judgment through the instant

Motion. It seeks $1,176,400 in total damages for lost sales and requests that this

Court enjoin third-party websites such as Amazon, eBay, and others from releasing

any funds to Lingxian that may be used to satisfy this judgment. Mem. in Supp. of

Mot. for Default J. at 17, ECF No. 25. Lingxian has failed to appear and has not

4
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 379

responded to any allegations by E-Nomads despite receiving notice of the instant law-

suit. This matter is ripe for resolution.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 sets forth a two-step process for obtaining

a default judgment. Subsection (a) of the Rule calls for an entry of default when a

party has failed to file a response pleading “or otherwise defend” the action within

the applicable time limit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The entry of default does not automat-

ically entitle a party to a default judgment. 2 The decision to grant a motion for default

judgment rests in the sound discretion of the court. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen.

Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). Well-pleaded allegations of fact are construed as ad-

mitted after a default. Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 252 F.3d 778, 780 (4th

Cir. 2001). Default judgments, however, are generally disfavored. Tazco, Inc. v. Dir.,

Off. of Workers Comp. Program, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 895 F.2d 949, 950 (4th Cir. 1990);

United States v. Ragin, 113 F.3d 1233 (4th Cir. 1997). They are warranted when “the

adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Bo-

land v. Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C. 2011).

In deciding whether a default judgment should be granted, a court must con-

sider the following factors: “(1) the amount of money potentially involved; (2) whether

material issues of fact or issues of substantial public importance are at issue; (3)

whether the default is largely technical; (4) whether plaintiff has been substantially

2Subsection (b) requires the court’s final action following entry of default by the Clerk
under subsection (a). Id. at 55(b).
5
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID# 380

prejudiced by the delay involved; . . . (5) whether the grounds for default are clearly

established or are in doubt . . . [;] (6) how harsh an effect a default judgment might

have; [and] (7) whether the default was caused by a good-faith mistake or by excusa-

ble or inexcusable neglect on part of the defendant.” EMI April Music, Inc. v. White,

618 F. Supp. 2d 497, 506 (E.D. Va. 2009) (quoting 10A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, AR-

THUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE et al., FED. PRAC. & PROC.: CIVIL § 2685 (3d ed.));

see also Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 953 (4th Cir. 1987).

III. ANALYSIS

The requirement of Rule 55(a) is satisfied. On September 2, 2021, the Clerk of

the Court entered Lingxian’s default. Entry of Default, ECF No. 21. The Court pro-

ceeds to consider whether default judgment is appropriate as outlined in Rule 55(b).

A. Default Judgment Factors

First, the amount of money requested weighs against the entry of a default

judgment. The money requested─$1,176,400─is significant. Because of the substan-

tial sum, this factor weighs against a default judgment.

Second, the absence of issues of disputed material fact and issues of substantial

public importance weighs in favor of a default judgment. Based on the record,

Lingxian has not challenged any facts submitted by E-Nomads. Lingxian has not yet

appeared on the docket and has not filed any response to E-Nomads’ contentions.

Facts taken as admitted show that Lingxian wrongfully filed complaints against E-

Nomads on Amazon alleging that E-Nomads’ sale of its own textured moon lamps was

an infringement on Lingxian’s ’252 patent. These wrongful complaints caused E-

6
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID# 381

Nomads’ Amazon account to be shut down and caused it to incur over a million dollars

in losses.

Lingxian wrongfully filed infringement complaints against E-Nomads. It is ev-

ident based on the admitted facts that E-Nomads’ moon lamps did not infringe on

Lingxian’s ’252 patent. For example, the ’314 patent that described similar moon

lamps with textured surfaces was deemed prior art and therefore distinguished from

the ’252 patent for lamps with smooth surfaces. Ex Parte Forms at 4, ECF No. 25-4.

This means that any moon lamp that had a textured surface as opposed to a smooth

surface was out of the scope of the ’252 patent. The same is true for the galaxy lamp.

The textured surface of the galaxy lamp as well as the charging port are elements not

claimed by the ’252 patent. 3 Moreover, the business dispute in this case primarily

affects the private interests of the business entities involved. The issue is not of such

substantial public importance that it cannot be decided on default. This factor weighs

in favor of granting default judgment.

Third, the default is not merely technical in nature. This weighs in favor of

entering default judgment. As of the date of this Order, Lingxian has not responded

to the Complaint, the instant Motion for Default Judgment, or any preceding Motions

in this case. Service on Lingxian was complete on August 2, 2021. Certificate of Ser-

vice, ECF No. 15. The last date of publication of notice of this lawsuit was July 29,

3 This Court need not reach a conclusion on whether the ’252 patent should be inval-
idated for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it concludes that Lingxian
wrongfully filed complaints with Amazon alleging that E-Nomads’s products were an
infringement on its patent.
7
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID# 382

2021 in The Washington Post. Id. The deadline to file a response was October 8, 2021.

This Court has provided Lingxian with several opportunities to address E-Nomads’

allegations, yet it has failed to do so.

It is evident that Lingxian did not merely miss a deadline but is “entirely ig-

nor[ing] [the] proceedings”, which justifies default judgment. EMI April Music, Inc.,

618 F. Supp. 2d at 507. In addition to the formal service described above, Lingxian

had actual notice of the pendency of this case. Defense counsel contacted Lingxian’s

CEO after which Lingxian responded to his email. Counsel Emails, ECF No. 25-1.

Lingxian was repeatedly told that Plaintiffs had filed a suit against it in this Court

and that it was in default. Id. It received notice of the allegations against it and the

pending suit, yet it did not respond. Lingxian’s resistance to appearing and answering

E-Nomads’ allegations warrants default judgment.

Fourth, E-Nomads has been prejudiced by Lingxian’s delay, which weighs

strongly in favor of default judgment. E-Nomads filed its Complaint on June 15, 2021.

Compl., ECF No. 1. It has attempted to contact Lingxian multiple times through dif-

ferent mediums including service by publication in The Washington Post and email.

E-Nomads’ Amazon account is still suspended, and that has a substantial negative

impact on its business every day. E-Nomads is further prejudiced because it cannot

sell its business or seek investors because of negative Amazon account metrics and

8
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID# 383

loss of sales. Second Olaru Decl. at 5, ECF No. 25-5. Further delay will likely mean

that E-Nomads fails to recover its Amazon account and continues a steep loss in sales.

Fifth, the grounds of default have been established, and this weighs in favor of

default judgment. There is no doubt that the default has occurred. This Court has

provided Lingxian with multiple opportunities to respond to preceding motions and

the opportunity to respond to the instant Motion for Default Judgment with an ex-

planation. They have not done so.

Sixth, the relief requested is significant but not harsh when viewed in light of

the opportunities presented to Defendants to cure the problems. Lingxian was pro-

vided multiple notices of their wrongful enforcement of the ’252 patent. E-Nomads

emailed Lingxian’s patent counsel in an effort to obtain domestic contact for possible

representation while service via publication was taking place. E-Nomads has been

communicating with Lingxian via e-mail and inquired as to its intent to respond to

the instant suit, and Lingxian did not reply. Taken together, this Court construes

these actions to be a willful refusal by Lingxian to engage with E-Nomads in this

action.

Seventh and lastly, there is no indication that this default was caused by a

good-faith mistake or mere neglect by Defendants. As discussed, Lingxian is fully

aware of E-Nomads’ claims against it. E-Nomads even offered to withdraw this law-

suit if Lingxian offered an irrevocable license under the ’252 patent. Counsel Emails

at 2, ECF No. 25-1. Based on the current record, this Court concludes that Lingxian

has not mistakenly failed to respond to the instant allegations. It has purposefully

9
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID# 384

refused to engage. Lingxian has not made any submission that would allow this Court

to find that the existence of a mistake or other neglect warranted a denial of default

judgment.

B. Damages

After finding that default judgment is compelled, a court must determine ap-

propriate relief. Although factual allegations in a complaint may be taken as true, a

default judgment does not concede the amount demanded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6)

(“An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a

responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.”). Damages must be

proven, and a court maintains discretion over how the existence and amount of dam-

ages may be appropriately shown. JTH Tax, Inc. v. Geraci, No. 2:14cv236, 2014 WL

4955373, at *7 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) (citing Monge v. Portofino Ristorante, 751 F.

Supp. 2d 789, 794–96 (D. Md. 2010)). There is “no need to convene a formal eviden-

tiary hearing on the issue of damages” if the party seeking default judgment has sub-

mitted declarations, affidavits, and/or other documents supporting the amount of

damages sought. Pentech Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Old Dominion Saw Works, Inc., No.

6:09cv04, 2009 WL 1872535, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 30, 2009); Anderson v. Found. for

Advancement, Educ. and Emp. of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 507 (4th Cir. 1998).

Here, E-Nomads seeks $1,176,400 in total damages for lost sales. E-Nomads

has submitted two Declarations by Managing Director Maria Olaru. Olaru Decls.,

ECF Nos. 25-5 & 25-6. She states that E-Nomads sells 99 percent of its moon lamps

and galaxy lamps on Amazon. Olaru Decl. at 1, ECF No. 25-5. She further asserts

10
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID# 385

that both lamps did not infringe on the ’252 patent, yet Lingxian filed a series of

complaints through Amazon’s automated patent infringement reporting system

against E-Nomads. Id. at 2. In her second Declaration, Ms. Olaru calculates the loss

of sale profits per quarter, which totals the $1,176,400 requested. Second Olaru Decl.

at 3, ECF No. 25-6. The Court finds that E-Nomads has provided sufficient evidence

to establish that it is entitled to such amount as damages and an evidentiary hearing

is not necessary in this instance.

B. Injunction

E-Nomads also requests that this Court enjoin third-party websites such as

Amazon, eBay, and others, from releasing any funds to Lingxian that may be used to

satisfy this judgment. 4 Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Default J. at 17, ECF No. 25.

“[A] trial court is given broad discretionary powers in shaping equitable de-

crees.” MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam PLC, No. 1:10cv511, 2012 WL 2153165, at *2

(E.D. Va. June 12, 2012) (quoting Gemveto Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Jeff Cooper Inc., 800

F.2d 256, 259 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). But “an injunction is a drastic and extraordinary

remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson

Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010) (citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S.

305, 311–12 (1982)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) dictates that a court grant-

ing an injunction set forth the reasons for the issuance of an injunction and detail its

4It is unclear whether E-Nomads is relying on its previously filed Second Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in making this argument. Even if it is, it does not describe
why such an injunction is warranted through a Motion for Default Judgment and
therefore has not met its burden for such a remedy.
11
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 386

terms. In deciding whether a permanent injunction 5 should be granted, the Court

considers four factors: (1) whether the party seeking an injunction has suffered an

irreparable injury; (2) whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages,

are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) whether, in light of the balance of

hardships between plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4)

whether the public interest would be disserved by an injunction. eBay, Inc. v. Mer-

cExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

E-Nomads has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted against

online marketplaces with which Lingxian does business. E-Nomads does not analyze

any of the four applicable factors in its Memorandum. See generally Mem. in Supp. of

Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 25. Furthermore, E-Nomads does not seek an injunction

against Lingxian, which is a party to this suit. E-Nomads has not stated why online

marketplaces, such as Amazon or eBay, should be subject to an injunction in proceed-

ings to which they are not a party. 6

Even if E-Nomads had analyzed the appropriate factors for an injunction, and

could justify entry of an injunction against non-parties, it is not warranted. The losses

it describes are monetary, as described earlier. “Mere injuries, however substantial,

5 E-Nomads does not specify the type of injunction it is seeking in its Motion for De-
fault. This Court construes it as a request for permanent injunction.
6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) outlines the categories of persons who are

bound by a court’s injunction. It allows third-parties to be bound where they are “of-
ficers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in
active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). E-Nomads does not recognize this requirement or describe how
online marketplaces may or may not fall into the described categories that would
allow these entities to be bound by a potential injunction.
12
Case 2:21-cv-00337-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 10/21/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID# 387

in terms of money, time and energy . . . are not enough.” Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872

F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)). 7

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No.

24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the Second Motion for Prelim-

inary Injunction (ECF No. 16) is DISMISSED as moot. It is ORDERED that default

judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of

$1,176,400.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to forward a copy of this Order to counsel of record

for Plaintiff E-Nomads SRL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/
Arenda L. Wright Allen
United States District Judge
October 21, 2021
Norfolk, Virginia

7
E-Nomads attempts to distinguish its case from Di Biase by arguing that it faces
irreparable harm because it may be driven out of business. ECF No. 17 at 16. It cites
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres of Land, Owned by Sandra Townes Pow-
ell, 915 F.3d 197, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). That case and the line of cases it relies on
evaluate irreparable harm in the unique context of losses resulting from an adminis-
trative process governing natural gas companies and the business they engage in.
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 915 F.3d at 219. E-Nomads provides no argument
showing why its prospective economic losses are analogous to those suffered in Moun-
tain Valley Pipeline due to pipeline construction delays. Furthermore, it provides in-
sufficient analysis showing why it could not be made whole by money damages.
13