Epoch Company's Aquabeads Schedule A copyright complaint is administratively closed

The complaint

Epoch Company, Ltd. v. the individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A to the complaint, No. 2:26-cv-02383 (W.D. Pa.), is a 25-page complaint filed November 4, 2026. Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan is assigned. Epoch Company, Ltd. is a Japanese company. The complaint is brought against the Schedule A defendants, identified by store names and seller aliases on third-party e-commerce platforms. It seeks injunctive and monetary relief for alleged copyright infringement.

The work

The complaint says Epoch develops, markets, licenses, and distributes Aquabeads products, a water-activated bead arts-and-crafts line, and that it owns Copyright Registration No. VA0002329189, which it calls the Aquabeads Work. The Copyright Office record for that registration is titled Beginners Studio Template, in the Aquabeads series. It names EPOCH COMPANY, LTD. as author, as employer for hire of two-dimensional artwork, and as claimant. The record gives a registration date of October 3, 2022 and a date of first publication of December 21, 2016, and it notes that the registration is based on a unit of publication. The complaint says the registration was effective on October 3, 2022, before the alleged infringement began.

The alleged conduct

The complaint alleges that the Schedule A defendants have manufactured, imported, advertised, offered for sale, and/or sold products bearing unlicensed reproductions of the Aquabeads Work through e-commerce stores using the seller aliases listed on Schedule A, on third-party platforms including Temu. It says the defendants are individuals and business entities that reside in the People's Republic of China and other foreign jurisdictions identified on Schedule A. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants are sophisticated sellers, that they regularly transact business and have caused injury in Pennsylvania, and that they are participating in a common scheme to distribute and sell the accused products to United States consumers. It says screenshot evidence of each seller's listings is attached, and that the defendants do not have an ownership interest in the work.

The claim and the prayer

Count I pleads copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (3), and (5), and infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501(a), and it also alleges contributory infringement. The complaint asks the court to permanently enjoin the defendants from reproducing, distributing, publicly displaying, or preparing derivative works based on the Aquabeads Work, from making, offering, selling, or importing unauthorized products that include a reproduction or colorable imitation of the work, and from using new entities or devices to avoid the injunction; to order delivery for destruction of infringing products; to restrain financial accounts and, after a monetary judgment, to direct transfer of restrained funds; to award statutory damages for willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), or, alternatively, actual damages and profits; to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505; and to award other just relief.

The court's orders

On November 4, 2026, Epoch also filed a motion for leave to file documents under seal, a motion for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and an order to show cause, and a motion for alternative service. On November 5, 2026, Judge Ranjan entered a standing order concerning Schedule A cases and then denied the motion to seal, the temporary-restraining-order motion, and the alternative-service motion, each without prejudice. The sealing order states that, at present, Epoch had not shown good cause because it had not stated with any particularity that the defendants in this case had improperly transferred assets to avoid judgment or had done so in prior instances, that generalized allegations about counterfeiter defendants do not suffice, and that Epoch may refile the motion with that particularity. The temporary-restraining-order denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion once the sealing issue is resolved. The alternative-service denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion after service under the Hague Service Convention is attempted and fails, and it cites a 2025 Second Circuit decision holding that the Convention prohibits service by email on defendants in mainland China with known physical addresses. The court then entered an order for administrative closing, directing the clerk to mark the case closed, stating that the order is not a dismissal or disposition of the action, and holding a pending motion for leave to file excess pages in abeyance pending any reopening.