In the cross-border e-commerce context, intellectual property lawsuit settlements can involve various aspects and steps, from a detailed analysis of stakeholders, such as understanding each party's position, evaluating the economic benefits of settlement versus the costs and potential risks of continuing litigation, to determining the content of the settlement, including compensation, licensing of intellectual property rights, defining future business relationships, and possible confidentiality requirements.

 

Settlements also need to specify the applicable law and the mechanism for resolving future disputes, such as choosing arbitration or court resolution. In cross-border contexts, it's also necessary to consider differences in legal systems across countries and ensure that the settlement agreement can be enforced in all relevant jurisdictions. Typically, the settlement process includes negotiation, drafting of the agreement, and its signing and enforcement. However, during this process, challenges unique to cross-border litigation, such as cultural and communication differences, as well as potential information asymmetries, also need to be adequately addressed.

​

In the context of cross-border e-commerce, potential issues with settlements include:

• By freezing e-commerce platform accounts followed by subsequent settlements, plaintiffs can theoretically resolve disputes completely without ever filing a lawsuit against any defendant. This way, plaintiffs effectively circumvent the legal service process.

• Cross-border e-commerce operators might only learn that they have become defendants after their e-commerce platform accounts are frozen. This could disrupt their business operations and cash flow, potentially forcing them into unfair settlements under pressure. Furthermore, although such settlements could save judicial resources, they are made based on the plaintiff's claims without hearing the defendant's side, which might lead defendants to accept an unfair settlement rather than contesting in court, even if they might have a chance to win the case.

• In many cases, due to defendants settling or not appearing in court, any legal or factual errors are unlikely to be corrected or appealed, undermining the judicial system's self-correction mechanism.

• Before issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to freeze the accounts of cross-border e-commerce operators, courts require plaintiffs to post a bond to compensate for losses caused by an incorrect freeze. However, defendants who settle are unlikely to seek compensation from the bond, and judges may be reluctant to make punitive judgments against plaintiffs (the intellectual property owners) from the bond, for the following possible considerations:

  • Terms of the Settlement Agreement: Settlements usually involve an agreement containing terms agreed upon by both parties. These terms might include the defendant waiving certain rights, such as the right to claim from the bond.

  • Avoiding Further Legal Proceedings: Settlements are often aimed at avoiding longer and more expensive legal proceedings. Even if defendants have the right to claim from the bond, they might choose not to do so to avoid further legal disputes and expenses.

  • Judges' Discretion: Judges have a certain amount of discretion when deciding whether to pay losses from the bond. They might consider various factors, such as the plaintiff's good faith, the specifics of the case, and principles of fairness.

  • Non-Punitive Nature: The primary purpose of the bond is to compensate for losses caused by an erroneous injunction, not to act as a punishment for any party. Judges might be reluctant to issue decisions that seem punitive, especially when the parties have already reached a settlement.

  • Protecting the Rights of Intellectual Property Owners: In intellectual property cases, protecting the legitimate rights of intellectual property owners is an important consideration. Judges might carefully weigh the decision to pay compensation from the bond to avoid negatively impacting the protection of intellectual property.

In cross-border e-commerce, defendants often fail to appear in U.S. intellectual property infringement lawsuits primarily due to unfamiliarity with the U.S. legal system, constraints on costs and resources, geographical and physical barriers, language difficulties, and misjudgment of the litigation outcomes. These factors collectively lead many cross-border e-commerce entities to opt out of participating in the litigation, especially when they believe that the judgments of U.S. courts will not affect their operations abroad.

​

This absence can lead to serious consequences, including the court issuing a default judgment, which is typically highly unfavorable to the defendant. Moreover, absence can result in financial liabilities, including substantial damages and legal fees, while also potentially causing long-term negative impacts on the e-commerce's business reputation. In some cases, judgments for intellectual property infringement can restrict the e-commerce's sales and operations in the U.S. market, and even affect its global business. Therefore, active participation and seeking professional legal advice in the face of intellectual property infringement lawsuits are crucial.

 

Appendix: The default judgment order template provided by Judge Martha M. Pacold of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois can inform you of the specific harms default judgments bring to cross-border e-commerce. Please see:  https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Pacold/Default%20Judgment%20Template%20for%20Schedule%20A%20cases.pdf