TP-Link Systems Inc. v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 15, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00057
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Swen Prior, Esq. Edward J. Mayle (pro hac vice) Nevada Bar No. 9324 Kenneth S. Chang (pro hac vice) 2 Aleem A. Dhalla, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Nevada Bar No. 14188 1801 California Street, Suite 5000 3 SNELL & WILMER Denver, CO 80202 1700 S Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700 Tel: (303) 974-6653 4 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Fax: (303) 974-6659 Telephone: (702) 784-5200 edward.mayle@hklaw.com 5 Facsimile: (702) 784-5252 kenneth.chang@hklaw.com Email: sprior@swlaw.com 6 adhalla@swlaw.com Amir A. Shakoorian (pro hac vice) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 7 Kristopher L. Reed (pro hac vice) 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Adrienne E. Dominguez (pro hac vice) Los Angeles, California 90071 8 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Tel: (213) 896-2578 One Arts Plaza amir.shakoorian@hklaw.com 9 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Sadie Mlika (pro hac vice) 10 Tel: (214) 964-9500 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Fax: (214) 964-9501 10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor 11 kris.reed@hklaw.com Boston, MA 02116 adrienne.dominguez@hklaw.com Tel: (617) 854-1497 12 sadie.mlika@hklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 16 TP-LINK SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00057-JCM-BNW 17 TP-Link, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY ALL CASE DEADLINES PENDING 18 v. RULING ON SANCTIONS MOTION 19 SHENZHEN CUDY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 20 Cudy. 21 22 23 Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. (“TP-Link”), by and through its counsel of record, 24 respectfully requests the Court stay all future Court deadlines pending resolution of TP-Link’s 25 forthcoming motion for sanctions, as more fully explained below. 26 Since early June 2025, Cudy has advanced a narrative that an individual named Jianzhong 27 Yang was the designer of the accused products, and that no written communications were ever 28 exchanged with this designer. Cudy even supported that narrative with sworn declarations filed 1 with the Court from Cudy’s CEO and a lower-level employee. TP-Link has now discovered that 2 Cudy’s narrative was false, and that Cudy’s CEO and employee perjured themselves. In response 3 to this attempted fraud on the Court, Cudy’s prior counsel withdrew from the case, and TP-Link 4 intends to move for severe sanctions. With initial expert disclosures due in just over two weeks, 5 however, there is inadequate time under the present case schedule to address Cudy’s misconduct. 6 Therefore, TP-Link respectfully requests that the Court stay all future Court deadlines pending 7 resolution of TP-Link’s forthcoming motion for sanctions.1 8 Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-2, TP-Link met and conferred with counsel for Defendant 9 Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co. Ltd. (“Cudy”), and Cudy stated that in the interest of judicial 10 efficiency, does not oppose the specific relief sought by this motion; however, such non-opposition 11 should not be construed as an endorsement of, or agreement with, any of the positions or arguments 12 set forth by TP-Link in support of this motion. Cudy will respond to TP-Link’s positions and 13 arguments at an appropriate time. 14 I. TIMELINE AND BACKGROUND 15 1. TP-Link served initial requests for production of documents and interrogatories on 16 Cudy on May 5, 2025. TP-Link’s second interrogatory requested “Describe in detail the facts and 17 circumstances concerning the conception, creation, selection, and adoption of the Accused Cudy 18 Trade Dress, including by identifying (i) the origin of the Accused Cudy Trade Dress and (ii) all 19 Persons responsible for or participated in the conception, creation, selection, or adoption of the 20 Accused Cudy Trade Dress.” (Dkt. 81-1.) TP-Link’s second request for production similarly 21 requested “for each Accused Cudy Product, Documents concerning the design, development, 22 testing, operation, and/or use of the Accused Cudy Product.” (Dkt. 81-2.) TP-Link’s tenth request 23 for production further requested all documents “that influenced, were used, were referenced, or 24 otherwise relate to Your work in designing any Accused Cudy Product or in deciding to design the 25 Accused Cudy Products.” (Declaration of Kristopher L. Reed (“Reed Decl.”), Ex. 1.) 26 2. On June 9, 2025, Cudy responded to Interrogatory No. 2 served by TP-Link, 27 representing: 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Dkt. 81-1) (emphasis added). Cudy did not produce any communications with the identified third- 10 party designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang, in response to TP-Link’s requests for production. (Reed Decl., 11 ¶ 5.) 12 3. On September 9, 2025, per TP-Link’s request, Cudy supplemented its response to 13 Interrogatory No. 2 to provide further detail regarding its design activities with this third-party 14 designer, Mr. Yang. In that supplemental response, Cudy represented that 15 16 17 18 19 Again, no communications with Mr. Yang were produced with this supplementation. (Reed Decl., 20 ¶ 5.) 21 4. Over the following weeks, counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding 22 Cudy’s failure to produce any written communications with this third-party designer, Mr. Yang. 23 During these conferrals, Cudy’s counsel repeatedly relayed its client’s representation that Cudy had 24 zero written communications with Mr. Yang during the design of the accused products—no emails 25 or messages, no service agreements or statements of work, no invoices or payments between Cudy 26 and Mr. Yang, and no meeting requests or confirmation of meetings. (Reed Decl., ¶ 6.) Cudy’s 27 28 1 counsel further represented that the only contact information available for Mr. Yang was a Chinese 2 phone number, and that Cudy had no address, email or other contact information for this individual. 3 5. TP-Link filed a motion to compel on October 23, 2025, requesting “that the Court 4 order Cudy to produce all communications with the third-party designer of the accused products, 5 irrespective of the communication platform used for such communications.” (Dkt. 81 at 11.) In 6 support of this motion, TP-Link noted that “Cudy has failed to produce a single written 7 communication between Cudy and Mr. Yang regarding these designs” and argued, inter alia, that 8 “[i]t is unbelievable that zero written communications exist between Cudy and the principal 9 designer of the sophisticated Wi-Fi routers and mesh-network products at the center of this action.” 10 (Id. at 9.) 11 6. On October 31, 2025, TP-Link served additional discovery requests on Cudy. Many 12 of those new requests—including one request for production, three interrogatories, and at least 37 13 requests for admission—were directed to Cudy’s relationship with this third-party designer, Mr. 14 Jianzhong Yang. (See Reed Decl., Exs. 2-4.) 15 7. Cudy responded to the motion to compel on November 4, 2025. In opposing TP- 16 Link’s motion, Cudy maintained its prior representations that it had engaged “a third-party 17 freelance designer named Jianzhong Yang” to design the accused products. (Dkt. 89 at 1.) Cudy 18 further represented that: 19 The designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang, agreed to provide freelance design work. Yang preferred to communicate by phone or in person, which is a common practice in 20 China for freelancers. Andy Chen and Reed Liu met in person with Yang a handful of times, where they discussed designs and exchanged documents, when 21 developing the external housing for certain of Cudy’s products, including the 22 products which TP-Link has accused of infringement here. 23 (Id. at 3 (citations omitted).) Cudy further represented that “it has searched for and not located 24 communications with Yang” and that “Cudy personnel have provided sworn declarations that 25 communications with Yang were primarily in person.” (Id. at 4.) In view of these representations, 26 Cudy argued that “[w]hile TP-Link bristles at the lack of communication, it aligns with the sworn 27 statements that communications with Yang were done in person” and thus “there is nothing to 28 compel.” (Id. at 5.) Cudy further claimed that somehow “TP-Link is free to pursue discovery 1 directly from Yang” in China, despite Cudy providing only a Chinese phone number for Mr. Yang 2 and no additional contact information. 3 8. The “sworn statements” referenced by Cudy in its opposition to TP-Link’s motion 4 to compel were two sworn declarations submitted to the Court in support of Cudy’s opposition: (1) 5 one from Cudy founder and CEO, Zhihong “Andy” Chen (Dkt. 89-2); and (2) one from a lower- 6 level employee, Zheng “Ken” Chen (Dkt. 89-1). Each declaration is signed by the declarant 7 following an attestation that “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 8 America that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.” (Dkt. 89-1 at 4; Dkt. 9 89-2 at 3.) 10 9. The declaration from Cudy CEO, Andy Chen, identifies this same “third-party 11 designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang” and recounts “several in-person meetings with Mr. Yang a few 12 years ago in which he would bring various design options for our consideration.” (Dkt. 89-2 at 3.) 13 The Cudy CEO further attests that “Ken Chen introduced Mr. Yang to Cudy” and that the CEO 14 “only authorized Ken Chen to communicate with Mr. Yang on behalf of Cudy.” (Id.) The CEO 15 further attests that “[n]o one else at Cudy has been authorized by me to communicate directly with 16 Mr. Yang” and that the CEO is “not aware of any other employees at Cudy, during the time Mr. 17 Yang was designing products, who had direct communications with him.” (Id.) 18 10. The declaration from lower-level employee Ken Chen continues the narrative from 19 the CEO’s declaration. Specifically, Ken Chen identifies the same “third-party designer, Mr. 20 Jianzhong Yang” as the designer of the accused products. (Dkt. 89-1 at 3.) Mr. Ken Chen attests 21 that Mr. Yang “provides freelance industrial design services” and that he “did not communicate 22 electronically with [Mr. Yang], which is not an uncommon practice in China for freelancers.” (Id. 23 at 3.) Mr. Ken Chen further attests that he was “the primary point of contact with Mr. Yang, helping 24 to schedule meetings for Andy Chen and Reed Liu” and that such “meetings with Mr. Yang were 25 in person” and that he “do[es] not recall communicating with him other than by phone or in person.” 26 (Id. at 3.) 27 11. On November 6, 2025, TP-Link filed its reply in support of the motion to compel, 28 noting that “Cudy has provided no plausible justification for its failure to identify and produce all 1 written communications with the third party who designed all the accused products in this case.” 2 (Dkt. 91 at 3.) In support, TP-Link submitted a declaration from a renowned industrial designer 3 demonstrating that “the notion that all communications occurred orally, without a single written 4 exchange, is virtually impossible.” (Id. at 4.) TP-Link also showed that such an arrangement as 5 claimed by Cudy is implausible because it would violate Chinese law. (See id. at 4-5.) 6 12. On November 14, 2025, the Court heard argument on TP-Link’s motion to compel. 7 (See Dkt. 98). During the hearing, the Court asked Cudy’s counsel, “would you not concede that 8 it’s strange that there are no communications in writing? I mean, doesn’t that strike you as strange?” 9 (Reed Decl., Ex. 5 at 15:18-20). In response, Cudy’s counsel ultimately conceded, “I would have 10 expected to find something.” (Id. at 16:3.) The Court thus found it “really hard to understand how 11 there would be no communications whatsoever between him and employees for Cudy,” and that 12 “what has been provided is not sufficient to assuage [the Court] that a proper search has been 13 conducted.” (Id. at 20:18-23.) Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to compel in part, 14 ordering Cudy “to engage [] an e-vendor that both parties agree upon on so that both computers 15 and personal devices are searched for WeChat communications, but also other platforms that may 16 have been used as well. Parties are to meet and confer as to which custodian’s computers and 17 devices should be searched, but an e-vendor needs to conduct the search, provide a detailed 18 explanation of what was done and what was found and turned over to Plaintiff for review.” (Dkt. 19 98.) The parties were ordered first to confer, and the search was to be conducted no later than 20 November 30, 2025, with the review and production to take place no later than December 14, 2025. 21 (See id.) 22 13. Following the Court’s order, TP-Link engaged a Chinese law firm to investigate the 23 named third-party designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang, in order to verify Cudy’s attestations made during 24 briefing on TP-Link’s motion to compel and the related hearing. (Reed Decl., ¶ 11.) The materials 25 discovered by this investigation raised serious questions regarding the truthfulness of the sworn 26 declarations Cudy’s CEO and employee submitted to the Court. TP-Link alerted Cudy’s counsel to 27 this development by telephone on November 20, 2025, and provided the investigation materials by 28 email on November 21, 2025. (Id., Ex. 6.) These materials showed that Cudy’s alleged “freelance” 1 designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang, “is not a ‘freelancer’ by any definition, nor does he abstain from 2 electronic communications.” (Id.) In particular, the materials showed that Mr. Yang “uses the name 3 Yang Rui in marketing (and on WeChat)” and that Mr. Yang “is the founder of a government- 4 registered, brick-and-mortar design firm located near Cudy with multiple employees, and his 5 company profile page directs people to connect with him electronically via the company WeChat 6 QR code.” (Id.) 7 14. On November 24, 2025, TP-Link sent proposed search terms to Cudy’s counsel in 8 advance of the Court-ordered November 30, 2025 deadline for the device search. (Reed Decl., Ex. 9 7.) Many of the proposed search terms were derived from the materials TP-Link shared with 10 Cudy’s counsel from the Chinese law-firm investigation. (Id.) 11 15. On November 26, 2025, Cudy’s counsel informed TP-Link’s counsel by telephone 12 that all attorneys of record for Cudy—both lead and local counsel—would be withdrawing from 13 the litigation. (Reed Decl., ¶ 14.) Later that day, Cudy’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as 14 Counsel. (Dkt. 103.) In that motion, Cudy’s counsel reported: 15 On or around November 22, 2025, Kaempfer Crowell and Steptoe LLP first learned of inaccuracies in the record related to the design of the Accused Products, as they 16 are described in the operative Complaint. ECF No. 44. Steptoe LLP has informed 17 Cudy of the need to immediately correct these inaccuracies. Steptoe LLP has also been in contact with new counsel for Cudy concerning the immediate need to make 18 these record corrections and Steptoe LLP and Kaempfer Crowell understand that 19 Cudy will make such corrections will be made promptly. 20 (Dkt. 103 at 2-3.) As the requisite good cause for the withdrawal, Cudy’s counsel cited Nevada 21 Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3), which states: “A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . Offer 22 evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by 23 the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer 24 shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” 25 16. On December 1, 2025, the Court granted the requested withdrawal and ordered “that 26 by December 11, 2025, Defendant must obtain new counsel and have counsel file an appearance 27 with this Court.” (Dkt. 106.) New counsel for Cudy first appeared on December 5, 2025. (E.g., 28 1 Dkt. 109.) This represents the third time a new set of attorneys has appeared to represent Cudy in 2 this matter. (See Dkt. 21; Dkt. 103.) 3 17. On December 17, 2025, Cudy served a “corrected” answer to Interrogatory No. 2. 4 In that response, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. On the day after Christmas, December 26, 2025, Cudy served Supplemental Initial 18 Disclosures. (Reed Decl., Ex. 9.) The only supplemental disclosure provided by Cudy was listing 19 this same newly identified individual, Mr. Zhenxuan Guan, as someone “knowledgeable about the 20 conception and creation of the industrial designs of the accused Cudy products.” (Id. at 3.) In 21 contravention of Rule 26, no contact information was provided for this individual; only that “Mr. 22 Guan may be contacted through Cudy’s counsel.” (Id.) On January 6, 2025, per TP-Link’s request, 23 Cudy served Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures providing Mr. Guan’s contact information. 24 (See id., Ex. 10.) 25 II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR A STAY OF ALL COURT DEADLINES 26 Cudy’s repeated misrepresentations during discovery and Cudy’s submission of perjured 27 testimony to the Court have upended this case. For over six months during discovery, Cudy 28 advanced a false narrative that Mr. Jianzhong Yang was the designer of the accused products, and 1 that Cudy’s only communications with Mr. Yang had been by telephone or in-person. When TP- 2 Link challenged this implausible narrative via its motion to compel, Cudy doubled down on its 3 deception by submitting perjured declarations to the Court from its CEO (Andy Chen) and a lower- 4 level employee (Ken Chen). Those coordinated declarations evince a deliberate, orchestrated effort 5 to commit fraud on the Court. Only after an investigation by a Chinese law firm unearthed 6 indisputable proof that Cudy was lying, and Cudy’s prior law firm was forced to withdraw as a 7 result, did Cudy elect to “correct” its story. 8 Cudy’s misrepresentations regarding the design process of the accused products go to the 9 heart of this trade-dress infringement case and, at a minimum, speak directly to Cudy’s intent to 10 copy TP-Link’s product designs. Cudy’s prior counsel confirmed this in their motion to withdraw, 11 lamenting “inaccuracies in the record related to the design of the Accused Products, as they are 12 described in the operative Complaint” and acknowledging “the need to immediately correct these 13 inaccuracies.” (Dkt. 103 at 2.) Cudy’s deception has thus “thwarted [TP-Link’s] right to obtain 14 relevant discovery relating to the specific causes of action.” Swisher Hygiene Franchise Corp. v. 15 Clawson, No. CV-15-01331-PHX-DJH, 2018 WL 8642738, at *14 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2018) 16 (entering default judgment where the defendants “engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that 17 undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.”) (cleaned up). 18 TP-Link intends to move the Court to impose sanctions for Cudy’s misconduct. This may 19 include terminating sanctions or other such penalties, including fees, as the Court deems 20 appropriate to address Cudy’s misconduct. See, e.g., Metricolor, LLC v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., No. 21 2:18-CV-00364-CAS-EX, 2024 WL 1376476, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024), aff'd, No. 24-3747, 22 2025 WL 3281522 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025) (“Where a party so damages the integrity of the 23 discovery process that there can never be assurance of proceeding on the true facts, a case 24 dispositive sanction may be appropriate.”); Addison v. Monarch & Assocs., Inc., 2017 WL 25 10562596, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 26 10651147 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2017) (“Upon a finding of bad faith, courts can levy an assortment of 27 sanctions under their inherent power, including monetary awards, attorneys’ fees, adverse inference 28 1 jury instructions, and even dismissal of claims or default.”) (cleaned up). Such sanctions thus have 2 the potential to eliminate, or at least simplify, disputed issues in this case. 3 Moreover, Cudy’s perpetual false narrative regarding the design of the products already has 4 wasted copious party and Court resources as TP-Link has chased discovery regarding a design 5 process that Cudy now has admitted was a fabrication. And Cudy’s deception on this key issue calls 6 into question the veracity and completeness of all Cudy’s discovery responses to date. Investigating 7 the full extent of Cudy’s misconduct in this and other areas of discovery and its attendant impact 8 on the case will require more time than currently afforded under the case schedule. (See Dkt. 107 9 at 3 (setting an initial Expert Disclosure deadline of January 23, 2025).) 10 Accordingly, good cause exists for the Court stay all Court deadlines until resolution of TP- 11 Link’s forthcoming motion for sanctions. See Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 12 4810324, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (holding that “[g]ood cause exists to stay discovery pending 13 the determination of the pending dispositive motions.”). This will prevent the needless expenditure 14 of time and resources on issues that may be resolved via TP-Link’s motion. See Landis v. N. Am. 15 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent 16 in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort 17 for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”) Upon resolution of the motion, the parties and the Court 18 will be best positioned to craft a reasonable schedule for resumption of expert disclosures and 19 completion of any remaining discovery should the case proceed. 20 Dated: January 12, 2026. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 21 By: /s/ Aleem A. Dhalla 22 SwenPrior,Esq. Aleem A. Dhalla, Esq. 23 1700 S Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 24 Kristopher L. Reed, Esq. (pro hac vice) 25 Adrienne E. Dominguez (pro hac vice) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 26 One Arts Plaza 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 27 Dallas, TX 75201 28 1 Edward J. Mayle, Esq. (pro hac vice) Kenneth S. Chang, Esq. (pro hac vice) 2 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 5000 3 Denver, CO 80202 Amir A. Shakoorian, Esq. (pro hac vice) 4 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 8th Floor 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071 6 Sadie Mlika (pro hac vice) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 7 10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor Boston, MA 02116 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 g Dated this 15th day of January, 2026.

nibs 13 14 & A sok MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -ll-

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing UNOPPOSED 3 MOTION TO STAY ALL CASE DEADLINES PENDING RULING ON SANCTIONS 4 MOTION with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada by using the 5 Court’s CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served 6 by the CM/ECF system. 7 8 Dated: January 12, 2026 9 /s/ Debbie Shuta An employee of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Swen Prior, Esq. Edward J. Mayle (pro hac vice) Nevada Bar No. 9324 Edward J. Mayle (pro hac vice) 2 Aleem A. Dhalla, Esq. Kenneth S. Chang (pro hac vice) Nevada Bar No. 14188 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 3 SNELL & WILMER 1801 California Street, Suite 5000 1700 S Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 4 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Tel: (303) 974-6653 Telephone: (702) 784-5200 Fax: (303) 974-6659 5 Facsimile: (702) 784-5252 edward.mayle@hklaw.com Email: sprior@swlaw.com kenneth.chang@hklaw.com 6 adhalla@swlaw.com Amir A. Shakoorian (pro hac vice) 7 Kristopher L. Reed (pro hac vice) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Adrienne E. Dominguez (pro hac vice) 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor 8 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Los Angeles, California 90071 One Arts Plaza Tel: (213) 896-2578 9 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 amir.shakoorian@hklaw.com Dallas, TX 75201 10 Tel: (214) 964-9500 Sadie Mlika (pro hac vice) Fax: (214) 964-9501 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 11 kris.reed@hklaw.com 10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor Boston, MA 02116 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff TP-Link Systems Inc. Tel: (617) 854-1497 sadie.mlika@hklaw.com 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 16 TP-LINK SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00057-JCM-BNW 17 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KRISTOPHER L. 18 v. REED IN SUPPORT OF TP-LINK’S MOTION TO STAY ALL CASE 19 SHENZHEN CUDY TECHNOLOGY CO., DEADLINES PENDING RULING ON LTD., SANCTIONS MOTION 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I, Kristopher L. Reed, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP, and represent Plaintiff 3 in the above-entitled action. 4 2. I have personal knowledge of all matters stated herein and would competently be 5 able to testify to them and make this declaration under the penalty of perjury. 6 3. I make this declaration pursuant to LR 26-6 in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 7 All Case Deadlines Pending Ruling on Sanctions Motion. 8 4. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of TP-Link’s request for production 9 number 10. 10 5. To date, Cudy has not produced any communications with the identified third-party 11 designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang, in response to TP-Link’s requests for production. 12 6. Counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding Cudy’s failure to produce any 13 written communications with this third-party designer, Mr. Yang. During these conferrals, Cudy’s 14 counsel repeatedly relayed its client’s representation that Cudy had zero written communications 15 with Mr. Yang during the design of the accused products. 16 7. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of TP-Link’s Second Set of Requests 17 for Production of Documents to Cudy. 18 8. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of TP-Link’s First Set of Requests 19 for Admission to Cudy. 20 9. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of TP-Link’s Second Set of 21 Interrogatories to Cudy. 22 10. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the transcript for the November 23 14, 2025 hearing on TP-Link’s motion to compel. 24 11. Following the Court’s order granting TP-Link’s motion to compel, TP-Link engaged 25 a Chinese law firm to investigate the named third-party designer, Mr. Jianzhong Yang. 26 12. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of TP-Link’s counsel’s November 27 21, 2025 email to Cudy’s counsel providing the investigation material on Mr. Jianzhong Yang. 28 1 13. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of TP-Link’s counsel’s November 2 24, 2025 email proposing search terms to Cudy’s counsel in advance of the Court-ordered 3 November 30, 2025 deadline for the device search. 4 14. On November 26, 2025, Cudy’s counsel informed TP-Link’s counsel by telephone 5 that all attorneys of record for Cudy—both lead and local counsel—would be withdrawing from 6 the litigation. 7 15. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Cudy’s “corrected” answer to 8 Interrogatory No. 2. 9 16. To date, Cudy has not produced any of the alleged “contracts” or communications 10 referenced in its “corrected” response to Interrogatory No. 2. 11 17. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Cudy’s Supplemental Initial 12 Disclosures. 13 18. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Cudy’s Second Supplemental 14 Initial Disclosures. 15 16 17 EXECUTED this 9th day of January, 2026, in Dallas, Texas. 18 /s/ Kristopher L. Reed 19 Kristopher L. Reed 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28