SAD Scheme Plaintiff Must Pay $40k to Defendant–Guangzhou Tinpod v. Schedule A Defendants

The plaintiff is Guangzhou Tinpod Electronic Technology Co. The plaintiff initially sued under the XYZ pseudonym and hasn’t updated the case caption, even though its identity is no longer sealed. I presume the plaintiff and many of the 44 defendants are Chinese entities. This case appears to be another example of how the SAD Scheme has become one of the U.S.’s most popular exports to China. The plaintiff claims that the defendants infringed its copyright, including registration #VAu 1-517-249, titled “Black Castor Oil 1 and 3 Other Unpublished Works.” As usual with SAD Scheme cases, the plaintiff initially obtained an ex parte TRO. Then, Shenzhen Moulis Electronic Co., Ltd., on behalf of 18 defendants (the “Aliver Defendants”), appeared in the case and started poking holes in the plaintiff’s assertions. Following the preliminary injunction hearing, the plaintiff dismissed the defendants voluntarily with prejudice. Voluntary dismissals are a standard tactic when SAD Scheme cases become…