Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co Limited V Floerns Et Al

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited sued Floerns, Verdusa, and SweatyRocks for copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and deceptive trade practices. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, finding Hong Kong failed to prove valid copyright ownership due to lack of a written agreement with the photography studio. Hong Kong moved to reconsider based on newly discovered evidence claiming the photographs were created by an employee within its corporate structure, but the court denied the motion, concluding the evidence should have been available earlier and contradicted prior representations.

Issues

  • Whether the post-judgment Copyright Assignment Agreement between Yu Zhen Shanghai and Hong Kong can be considered newly discovered evidence, given that it was created after the Court's summary judgment ruling.
  • Whether Hong Kong's motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence met the due diligence requirement under Rule 59(e), considering that the evidence was available during earlier discovery and summary judgment proceedings.
  • Whether Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited properly established that the photographs at issue were created by an employee within its corporate structure, thereby qualifying as 'works for hire' under copyright law, and whether the lack of a written agreement with the third-party photography studio invalidated its copyright claims.

Holdings

  • The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of Hong Kong's claims, determining that Hong Kong could not prove it owned valid copyrights for the relevant photographs. The Court found that Hong Kong lacked a written agreement with the third-party photography studio, which is required for the photographs to qualify as 'works for hire.'
  • The Court denied Hong Kong's motion to reconsider its summary judgment ruling, concluding that the newly discovered evidence was not actually new and that Hong Kong failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining it. The evidence, including a post-ruling Copyright Assignment Agreement, was deemed unavailable at the time of the original judgment.

Remedies

  • Defendants were directed to file a reply to Hong Kong's response to the fees and costs motion by February 9, 2026.
  • Hong Kong was directed to file a response to defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs by January 26, 2026.
  • The Court set a telephonic status hearing for February 17, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., using call-in number 650-479-3207 and access code 2305-915-8729.
  • The Court denied Hong Kong's motion for reconsideration of its prior summary judgment decision, concluding the motion did not meet the due diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence.
  • The Court vacated the previously scheduled telephonic hearing on January 6, 2026.

Legal Principles

The court denied Hong Kong's motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) because the plaintiff failed to meet the due diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence. The court emphasized that evidence must have been in existence at the time of the original judgment and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the summary judgment process. Hong Kong's contradictory representations during discovery and its failure to disclose the alleged employment relationship or oral assignment agreement further undermined its claim of newly discovered evidence.

Precedent Name

  • Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer
  • Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
  • LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  • Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Inds., Inc.
  • Vesey v. Envoy Air, Inc.
  • Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
  • Urbont v. Sony Music Ent.

Cited Statute

  • Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
  • Lanham Act

Judge Name

Matthew F. Kennelly

Passage Text

  • Hong Kong's April 2025 interrogatory response and argument in opposition to summary judgment directly contradict the information it now asserts as 'newly discovered' evidence.
  • "Newly discovered evidence must have been in existence at the time of the original judgment or pertain to facts in existence at the time of the judgment." LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co., 917 F.3d 933, 950 (7th Cir. 2019). Clearly, the written agreement did not exist at the time the Court granted defendants' summary judgment motion.
  • For all of these reasons, Hong Kong's motion does not meet the due diligence requirement. Assuming the picture that Hong Kong now paints is correct, all of the information it now cites would have been available had it exercised reasonable diligence when responding to the defendants' interrogatories or, at least, its motion for summary judgment.