On 7 February 2025, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Court”) made its final judgement on the copyright infringement case between three Tencent units such as Shanghai Tencent Penguin Pictures Culture Media Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. and Tencent Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (“Tencent”) and six business entities (“Defendants”) including Unblock Tech Taiwan Co., Ltd (“Unblock Tech”), Dali Tongda Technology Limited (“Dali Tongda”), finding that the Defendants had infringed the copyright of Tencent, awarding Tencent US$84.75 million in damages, and grant it a leave to claim attorney fees and related expenses within 60 days. It was a successful lawsuit for Tencent to defend its copyright globally and is a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Unblock Tech is a Taiwanese company mainly engaged in the research and development and sales of smart TV boxes. Its core product is the UBOX series of TV boxes (“UBOX”), which support live TV and on-demand services in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and other countries and regions. In this case, the UBOXs are manufactured by Hope Overseas Trading Co., Limited (“Hope Overseas”), one of the Defendants, and sold globally on e-commerce platforms, including through dealers authorized by Unblock Tech. Tencent discovered that the UBOXs were pre-installed with Tencent’s popular TV series, including Three Body and The Long Season, and its users could directly watch these unauthorized video works. Texas has the highest sales volume of the UBOXs in the United States. On 21 April 2023, Tencent filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against multiple related individuals and business entities, including the Defendants, mainly suppliers and sellers of the UBOXs, in the Western District Court of Texas, requesting monetary damages and a permanent injunction.
Tencent initially sued many individuals and business entities related to the development, manufacturing, and sales of the UBOXs. Based on the evidence submitted by Tencent, the Court found that the six defendants in this case, namely Unblock Tech, Dali Tongda, HK-UB, Hope Overseas Trading Co., Limited (“Hope Overseas”), Unbo Store-USA (“Unbo Store”) and MT Technology Inc. (“MT Technology”), committed infringement. Then the Court held that UnblockTech committed direct copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement, and the Defendants are inducing and materially contributing to copyright infringement. According to the final judgements, the Court issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants, prohibiting them from permanently enjoining from any unauthorized use of Tencent’s 73 Shows, 2310 episodes in total, and Tencent’s future copyrighted works. In addition to MT Technology, the Court ordered Unblock Tech and other defendants such as Dali Tongda, HK-UB, Hope Overseas, and Unbo Store to compensate Tencent US$42.375 million respectively, including:1. US$15.15 million in damages for the most serious willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (2), (US$150,000 damages per infringement for 101 works of Tencent);2. US$7.5 million in damages for the most serious infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) (US$30,000 per infringement for 250 award-winning shows of Tencent); and3. US$19.725 million in damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) (US$15,000 per infringement for Tencent’s 1,315 shows not eligible for statutory damages).
In this case, Tencent adopted a combination strategy of “Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) + default judgment”. In the beginning, Tencent applied for a TRO and preliminary injunction, requiring the immediate cessation of infringement. Through TRO, the infringing funds can be quickly frozen, and then through litigation pressure, the defendant can be forced to give up the defense. The Defendants in this case were all sentenced to default judgment because they did not respond to the lawsuit throughout the process. This is also one of the important reasons why the Court awarded high compensation in this case.
In the lawsuit, Tencent submitted a large amount of evidence, including copyright registration certificates, comparative analysis of infringing products, sales records, and evidence of malicious infringement. It successfully persuaded the Court to order the defendant of direct infringement and the defendants of indirect infringements to pay the same amount of statutory damages for the same works (101 works, 250 award-winning shows, and 1,315 shows not eligible for statutory damages). The direct infringing defendant, namely Unblock Tech, paid independently, while the indirect infringing defendants paid jointly. Meanwhile, Tencent successfully obtained the maximum statutory damages provided for in 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (1) and (2). This is due to Tencent’s strong legal team and intelligent copyright management system, which combines artificial intelligence, blockchain, big data, and other technologies to build a full-link protection mechanism from copyright confirmation to monitoring to protection.
In conclusion, this case has a demonstrative effect on cross-border IP protection for Tencent and in the video field, but there is room for improvement in collecting and retaining evidence of indirect infringement in the technical field. After all, Tencent did not receive damages from MT Technology in this case. Meanwhile, Tencent will soon face the challenge of subsequent execution. It must still be difficult.
Unblock Tech is a Taiwanese company mainly engaged in the research and development and sales of smart TV boxes. Its core product is the UBOX series of TV boxes (“UBOX”), which support live TV and on-demand services in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and other countries and regions. In this case, the UBOXs are manufactured by Hope Overseas Trading Co., Limited (“Hope Overseas”), one of the Defendants, and sold globally on e-commerce platforms, including through dealers authorized by Unblock Tech. Tencent discovered that the UBOXs were pre-installed with Tencent’s popular TV series, including Three Body and The Long Season, and its users could directly watch these unauthorized video works. Texas has the highest sales volume of the UBOXs in the United States. On 21 April 2023, Tencent filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against multiple related individuals and business entities, including the Defendants, mainly suppliers and sellers of the UBOXs, in the Western District Court of Texas, requesting monetary damages and a permanent injunction.
Tencent initially sued many individuals and business entities related to the development, manufacturing, and sales of the UBOXs. Based on the evidence submitted by Tencent, the Court found that the six defendants in this case, namely Unblock Tech, Dali Tongda, HK-UB, Hope Overseas Trading Co., Limited (“Hope Overseas”), Unbo Store-USA (“Unbo Store”) and MT Technology Inc. (“MT Technology”), committed infringement. Then the Court held that UnblockTech committed direct copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement, and the Defendants are inducing and materially contributing to copyright infringement. According to the final judgements, the Court issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants, prohibiting them from permanently enjoining from any unauthorized use of Tencent’s 73 Shows, 2310 episodes in total, and Tencent’s future copyrighted works. In addition to MT Technology, the Court ordered Unblock Tech and other defendants such as Dali Tongda, HK-UB, Hope Overseas, and Unbo Store to compensate Tencent US$42.375 million respectively, including:1. US$15.15 million in damages for the most serious willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (2), (US$150,000 damages per infringement for 101 works of Tencent);2. US$7.5 million in damages for the most serious infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) (US$30,000 per infringement for 250 award-winning shows of Tencent); and3. US$19.725 million in damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) (US$15,000 per infringement for Tencent’s 1,315 shows not eligible for statutory damages).
In this case, Tencent adopted a combination strategy of “Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) + default judgment”. In the beginning, Tencent applied for a TRO and preliminary injunction, requiring the immediate cessation of infringement. Through TRO, the infringing funds can be quickly frozen, and then through litigation pressure, the defendant can be forced to give up the defense. The Defendants in this case were all sentenced to default judgment because they did not respond to the lawsuit throughout the process. This is also one of the important reasons why the Court awarded high compensation in this case.
In the lawsuit, Tencent submitted a large amount of evidence, including copyright registration certificates, comparative analysis of infringing products, sales records, and evidence of malicious infringement. It successfully persuaded the Court to order the defendant of direct infringement and the defendants of indirect infringements to pay the same amount of statutory damages for the same works (101 works, 250 award-winning shows, and 1,315 shows not eligible for statutory damages). The direct infringing defendant, namely Unblock Tech, paid independently, while the indirect infringing defendants paid jointly. Meanwhile, Tencent successfully obtained the maximum statutory damages provided for in 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (1) and (2). This is due to Tencent’s strong legal team and intelligent copyright management system, which combines artificial intelligence, blockchain, big data, and other technologies to build a full-link protection mechanism from copyright confirmation to monitoring to protection.
In conclusion, this case has a demonstrative effect on cross-border IP protection for Tencent and in the video field, but there is room for improvement in collecting and retaining evidence of indirect infringement in the technical field. After all, Tencent did not receive damages from MT Technology in this case. Meanwhile, Tencent will soon face the challenge of subsequent execution. It must still be difficult.