IP Law Daily, PATENT—W.D. Wash.: Amazon seller denied preliminary injunction denied against patent holder, (Aug 4, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

An injunction was not warranted because the photographic equipment seller failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.

A seller of photographic equipment was not entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent what it alleged were baseless cease and desist and delisting requests from a patentee, the U.S. District Court in Seattle has held. The seller did not produce evidence the communications were made in bad faith or show that its products were not likely to infringe the asserted patent (Godox Photo Equipment Co. Ltd. v. Profoto Aktiebolag, No. 2:25-cv-00502-KKE (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2025)).

Godox Photo Equipment Co., Ltd. (Godox) was a seller of photographic and lighting equipment that sold through distributors and resellers including Amazon.com’s online platform. Profoto Aktiebolag (Profoto) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 11,630,375 (the ’375 patent). Godox brought suit against Profoto, alleging that Profoto had harmed its business relationships by sending improper cease and desist letters to its distributors, and infringement notices to Amazon.com that resulted in the delisting of Godox’s products from that platform. Godox sought a preliminary injunction. The court considered the traditional injunction factors.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court found that in order to succeed on the merits as to both state law and federal claims, Godox would have to show bad faith on the part of Profoto. The court found that there was nothing in the pleading or the evidence in the record to show bad faith, only ordinary commercial motivation.

While foreign equivalents patents had been invalidated in Chinese litigation, this did not show that the action to enforce an American patent under an American legal system was objectively baseless. The court also found that Godox had failed to show its products did not likely infringe the ’375 patent because the patent claims were highly technical and required claim construction, which had not yet occurred. A claim of patent invalidity made in the briefing was not relevant because it had not been made in Godox’s operative complaint.

Finding that Godox had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00502-KKE.

Judge: Evanson, K.

Attorneys: Ziyong Li (Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP) for Godox Photo Equipment Co Ltd. Dorian Ojemen (Baker & McKenzie LLP) for Profoto Aktiebolag.

Companies: Godox Photo Equipment Co Ltd.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet WashingtonNews