[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10949 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DIANA ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00057-PGB-LHP-3 ____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 22-10949 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 2 of 33

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10949

ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: A court’s injunction may require a person to do or refrain from doing a particular act. 1 Howard C. Joyce, A Treatise on the Law Relating to Injunctions § 1, at 2–3 (1909). But unlike a congres- sionally enacted statute, which can apply to everyone, an injunction generally applies to only those over whom the court has jurisdic- tion in the proceedings leading to the injunction, and only to the extent that the injunction gives notice to them. This case raises the question of just how far an injunction of a private corporation can reach. In 2017, TASER International, Inc., obtained an injunction against “Phazzer [Electronics] and its officers, agents, servants, em- ployees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with Phazzer Electronics or its officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys” (the “2017 injunction”). The injunction prohibited Phazzer Electronics from distributing or causing to be distributed certain stun guns and accompanying car- tridges that infringed on TASER’s intellectual property. At the time of the TASER-Phazzer Electronics litigation, Steven Abboud con- trolled Phazzer Electronics (though not on paper). And Phazzer Electronics employed, among others, Defendant-Appellant Diana Robinson. In 2018, after the district court found Abboud in contempt for violating the 2017 injunction, Phazzer Electronics became inac- tive, and Abboud persuaded Uriel Binyamin to start a new com- pany called Phazzer-USA. In the meantime, Abboud and Robinson USCA11 Case: 22-10949 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 3 of 33

22-10949 Opinion of the Court 3

went to work for other entities with “Phazzer” in their names. Among others, these included Phazzer IP and Phazzer Global. Phazzer IP and Phazzer Global, in turn, assisted Phazzer-USA in 2019 in distributing stun guns that the 2017 injunction prohibited Phazzer Electronics from distributing. Based on that activity the district court found Robinson (and others) in contempt of the 2017 injunction. On appeal, the ques- tion we must answer is whether the 2017 injunction extended broadly enough to bind Robinson and prohibit her conduct under the theories of liability that the government has pressed and the district court decided. After oral argument and careful review of the record, we conclude that the record cannot sustain Robinson’s conviction under the any of these theories. To be sure, the government did not seek a contempt convic-