最近更新：2024-12-25
2020-cv-05905
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 09/25/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion for leave to withdraw as attorney (Dckt. No. 218) is hereby granted. Attorney Mark Berkowitz is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. |
| 09/25/2024 | MOTION by Attorney Mark Berkowitz to withdraw as attorney for Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. No party information provided |
| 09/19/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion to withdraw as counsel (Dckt. No. [216]) is hereby granted. Attorney Na Zhang is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. |
| 09/06/2024 | MOTION by Attorney Na Zhang to withdraw as attorney for Runchenyun. No party information provided |
| 03/27/2024 | NOTICE by Richard Joseph Lamar Lomuscio of Change of Address |
| 03/19/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment (Dckt. No. [179]) is denied without prejudice. This case is about hoverboards. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd ("Chic") and Unicorn Global, Inc. sued various Defendants. See First Am. Cplt., at ¶¶ 6-7 (Dckt. No. 36). Chic owns several hoverboard patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D785,112; and D784,195. Id. at ¶13. The Court will refer to those patents as 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 by committing design patent infringement. Plaintiffs think that Defendants sold infringing hoverboards. Id. at ¶¶ 40-59. But this case is not the only hoverboard case in the Northern District of Illinois. Chic and Unicorn Global, Inc. filed another patent infringement lawsuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships, No. 20-cv-4806 (N.D. Ill.). That case is before Judge Durkin. Before Judge Durkin, Plaintiffs also alleged that various Defendants infringed the same four patents-in-suit as in this case: 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. See Third Am. Cplt., at ¶ 14 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 101). In this case, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion to dismiss. See Runchenyun's Mtn to Dismiss (Dckt. No. 89). Runchenyun invoked the claim splitting doctrine. It argued that Plaintiffs had already sued it in the lawsuit in front of Judge Durkin. See 6/1/21 Order (Dckt. No. 96). This Court denied the motion to dismiss. Id. This Court explained that it understood the complaint in this action to allege subsequent patent infringement, as compared to the other lawsuit. Id. After, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion for partial summary judgment. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). According to Defendant Runchenyun, no reasonable jury could find that the products it sells are "substantially similar to claimed designs of the Plaintiffs' patents." See Defs.' Mem., at 5 (Dckt. No. 180). After Defendant Runchenyun filed its motion, Judge Durkin issued a summary judgment decision in his hoverboard case. See 1/12/24 Opinion (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). The summary judgment decision did not apply to Defendant Runchenyun, because Plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed Runchenyun from Judge Durkin's case. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 267); 6/3/21 Order (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 276). In any event, Judge Durkin's summary judgment opinion dealt with the same issue before this Court whether a reasonable jury could find that the products that various defendants sold infringed Plaintiffs' patents. See 1/12/24 Opinion, at 3 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). Judge Durkin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his case. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs appealed. See Notice of Appeal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 690). The appeal is pending before the Federal Circuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1471). In sum, the issues in this case seem to overlap with the issues in the Federal Circuit appeal. In light of the overall, this Court wants to have the benefit of the Federal Circuit's opinion before it rules. For that reason, this Court denies Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). The parties must file a status report no later than one week after they learn that the Federal Circuit has issued a decision. The Court directs the parties to monitor that case from time to time, and keep the Court apprised of any developments. The status report must address whether Defendant Runchenyun seeks to refile its summary judgment motion, and if so, the parties must propose a briefing schedule. In sum, the Court will keep its powder dry until the Federal Circuit issues its decision. Mailed notice. |
| 03/06/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Settlement conference held. Parties appeared via videoconference. The parties made substantial progress towards resolution but were unable to reach an agreement. The Court thanks counsel for their efforts at resolving this matter. If counsel believe a further a settlement conference would be productive, the Court is happy to further engage in settlement discussions upon re-referral. All matters relating to the referral of this case having been resolved, this matter is returned to the District Judge. Referral terminated. Mailed notice |
| 01/16/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate status hearing held. Parties appear by telephone. Case has been referred for settlement conference. Video settlement conference is set for 3/6/24 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant to confirm time with its client and shall contact the courtroom deputy with agreed times if the scheduled time does not work. Parties have had preliminary discussions. Court discussed its procedure for conducting the settlement conference. Plaintiff's settlement letter shall be delivered to Defendant by 2/21/24. Defendant's settlement letter shall be delivered to plaintiff by 2/28/24. Settlement letters are limited to 5 pages excluding attachments. The parties must also submit their respective letters by email to Proposed_Order_Weisman@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Please note that settlement letters and documents are not to be filed on the CM-ECF system. Parties shall confer and send ONE email to Weisman_Chambers@ilnd.uscourts.gov by 2/28/24, identifying the email addresses of the individuals who intend to participate in the settlement conference. Parties have no objection to the Court having ex parte discussions with counsel in advance of the settlement conference if the Court believes such conversations would be warranted. Mailed notice |
| 01/14/2024 | NOTICE by Runchenyun of Recent Related Decision 附件： 1:Exhibit 20-cv-04806 Summary Judgment Order |
| 01/10/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Parties may appear in person or dial in using the Court's conference call-in number for the hearing set for today (1/16/24). The conference call-in number is 1-877-411-9748 and the passcode is 1814539. Please note that the Court's conference call-in will be used by all cases that are on the Court's calendar for the said date, therefore counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line and must have the telephone muted until your case is called by the Court. Once the Court has heard your case you shall disconnect from the conference line. Members of the public and media who wish to listen to this hearing may call in. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice |
| 01/05/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: On the Court's own motion, the status hearing set for 1/16/24 will begin at 11:00 a.m. rather than at 9:15 a.m. (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE.) Mailed notice |
| 12/28/2023 | ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice. |
| 12/28/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Weisman to conduct a settlement conference. The Court requests that counsel consult the Court's standing order on settlement conferences and related materials. Judge Weisman generally conducts settlement conferences Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays at either 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Other dates and times may be available as required by the Court or the parties. The Court directs the parties to confer no later than 1/5/24 regarding mutually agreeable dates in February 2024 and early March 2024 for the settlement conference and to jointly contact the Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Owens, via email to see if the date(s) are available for a settlement conference. Status hearing set for 1/16/24 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice |
| 12/22/2023 | Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable M. David Weisman for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: settlement conference.Mailed notice. |
| 12/22/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the joint statement about settlement discussions. (Dckt. No. 204) The parties started settlement discussions, and believe that future discussions may be productive. The parties seek a settlement conference. The Court hereby refers this case for a settlement conference to the designated Magistrate Judge. The Court directs the parties to participate in settlement discussions in good faith. The parties must file a status report no later than one week after the settlement conference. Mailed notice. |
| 12/20/2023 | STATUS Report [Joint Statement regarding Status of Settlement Discussions] by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. |
| 12/13/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court directs the parties to file a statement about the status of settlement discussions by December 20, 2023. The Court directs the parties to engage in good faith settlement discussions before filing that statement. The statement must reveal whether the parties seek a settlement conference. Mailed notice |
| 12/11/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Attorney Yu-Hao Yao's motion to withdraw (Dckt. No. 201) is hereby granted. Attorney Yu-hao Yao is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice |
| 12/01/2023 | MOTION by Attorney Yu-Hao Yao to withdraw as attorney for Runchenyun. No party information provided (Yao, Yu-hao) |
| 09/01/2023 | RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. to text entry 199 |
| 08/25/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: By September 1, 2023, Plaintiffs must show cause why every defendant except one should not be dismissed for improper joinder. Mailed notice. |
| 07/31/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiffs' motion for return of the bond (Dckt. No. 193) is hereby denied as premature. This Court previously issued a TRO and a preliminary injunction, but later vacated the preliminary injunction for lack of notice (Dckt. No. 105). Meanwhile, the case is still pending on the merits. Defendant might seek damages someday based on the notion that it was "wrongfully enjoined or restrained," as provided in Rule 65(c). That possibility is enough to justify the continuation of the bond. Plaintiffs obtained injunctive relief, and posted a bond as a security in case the bond was improper. And that issue remains unresolved, so the bond needs to remain in place. Mailed notice. |
| 07/21/2023 | RESPONSE by Runchenyunin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. for release of bond obligation 193 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1)(Yao, Yu-hao) |
| 07/13/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed Plaintiff's motion for release of the bond obligation. (Dckt. No. 194) The response is due by July 21, 2023. No reply. The motion for a briefing schedule (Dckt. No. 195) is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 07/12/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. to set a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Return of Bond |
| 07/10/2023 | MEMORANDUM by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. in support of motion for release of bond obligation 193 |
| 07/10/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. for release of bond obligation |
| 05/31/2023 | NOTICE by Timothy Gerrit Parilla of Change of Address |
| 05/31/2023 | NOTICE by Robert John Palmersheim of Change of Address |
| 05/30/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion for leave to withdraw appearance (Dckt. No. 189) is granted. Attorney Anand C. Mathew is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. |
| 05/26/2023 | MOTION by Attorney Anand C. Mathew to withdraw as attorney for Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. No party information provided |
| 11/15/2022 | REPLY by Defendant Runchenyun to memorandum in opposition to motion 184 附件： 1:Exhibit Federal Circuit Issued Opinion 2:(Exhibit Declaration of Jim Gandy to Support Summary Judgment Motion Group B) |
| 11/01/2022 | NOTICE by Runchenyun of Recent Related Decision 附件： 1:(Exhibit Federal Circuit's Related Decision) |
| 11/01/2022 | RULE 56.1(b)(2) and (3) Statement by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. regarding motion for partial summary judgment 179 |
| 11/01/2022 | DECLARATION of Expert Paul Hatch regarding memorandum in opposition to motion 184 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 11/01/2022 | MEMORANDUM by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. in Opposition to motion for partial summary judgment 179 |
| 10/06/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Runchenyun by Yu-hao Yao (Yao, Yu-hao) |
| 10/03/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (Dckt. No. 179). Plaintiff's response is due by November 1, 2022. Defendant's reply is due by November 15, 2022. Mailed notice. |
| 09/27/2022 | RULE 56.1 Statement 附件： 1:Exhibit Plaintiffs' Initial Infringement Contention 2:Exhibit US Design Patent 739906 3:Exhibit US Design Patent 808857 4:(Exhibit US Patent 8738278) |
| 09/26/2022 | MEMORANDUM by Runchenyun in support of motion for partial summary judgment 179 of non-infringement for Group B products 附件： 1:Exhibit Plaintiffs' Initial Infringement Contentions 2:Exhibit US Design Patent 739906 3:Exhibit US Design Patent 808857 4:Exhibit US Patent 8738278 5:Exhibit Declaration of Expert Jim Gandy to Support Partial Summary Judgment Motion 6:(Exhibit Declaration of Expert Lance Rake) |
| 09/26/2022 | MOTION by Defendant Runchenyun for partial summary judgment |
| 08/26/2022 | Joint Claim Construction Chart and Status Report Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.2(f) by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. |
| 08/25/2022 | APPENDIX - Defendant's Separate Supplemental Appendix Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.2(b) by Runchenyun 附件： 1:Appendix Defendant's Separate Supplemental Appendix Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.2(b) |
| 08/23/2022 | APPENDIX (Joint Appendix Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.2(b)) |
| 08/19/2022 | Reply to Plaintiffs' Responsive Claim Construction Brief by Runchenyun |
| 08/12/2022 | RESPONSE by Plaintiff Unicorn Global, Inc. to other 172 Defendant's Opening Claim Construction Brief |
| 08/01/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion to amend the scheduling order (Dckt. No. 171) is hereby granted. The Court adopts the proposed schedule. Runchenyun's opening claim construction brief is due on July 15, 2022. Runchenyun filed that brief by the proposed deadline. (Dckt. No. 172) Plaintiffs' responsive claim construction brief is due on August 12, 2022. Runchenyun's reply claim construction brief is due on August 19, 2022. The joint claim construction brief is due on August 26, 2022. Notices mailed. |
| 07/15/2022 | Defendant's Opening Claim Construction Brief by Runchenyun 附件： 1:Exhibit '278 Utility Patent 2:(Exhibit D'906 Design Patent) |
| 07/14/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. to amend/correct order 153 Joint Motion to Amended Scheduling Order 附件： 1:(Proposed Second Amended Scheduling Order) |
| 06/28/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: In light of the appearances field by new counsel for Plaintiffs, the motion to withdraw (Dckt. No. 154) is hereby granted. The Court directs new counsel to read and follow all of this Court's Orders, including the Amended Scheduling Order. (Dckt. No. 153) Mailed notice |
| 06/24/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. by Timothy Gerrit Parilla |
| 06/24/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. by Robert John Palmersheim |
| 06/24/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. by Anand C. Mathew |
| 06/23/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. by Richard Joseph Lamar Lomuscio |
| 06/16/2022 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. regarding text entry, 163 |
| 06/15/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. by Mark Berkowitz |
| 06/15/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' statement objecting to the proposed withdrawal of their counsel. (Dckt. No. 162) The objection is non-descript, and does not give this Court much of a reason to reject the proposal. Again, corporate entities (like Plaintiffs) cannot proceed pro se. They need to a lawyer to litigate the case on their behalf. Otherwise, the case cannot go forward. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to withdraw on May 19, so Plaintiffs have had several weeks to search for a new lawyer. Plaintiffs must retain new counsel and have that counsel enter an appearance by June 28, 2022. Otherwise, the Court is will grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the case for want of prosecution. The Court directs Plaintiffs' counsel to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs and file a certificate of service on the docket. Mailed notice |
| 06/09/2022 | STATEMENT by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. / Plaintiffs' Statement in Opposition to Withdrawal |
| 06/03/2022 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. regarding text entry, 160 |
| 06/01/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the status report, which provided an update about the communications between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel about the motion to withdraw. (Dckt. No. 159) Plaintiffs must file any objections to the motion to withdraw by June 9, 2022. Plaintiffs are corporate entities, so they cannot represent themselves. They need a lawyer. Without a lawyer, they cannot bring claims. The deadline for Plaintiffs to retain new counsel (if they so choose) is June 16, 2022. If new counsel does not file an appearance by June 16, 2022, the Court may dismiss the case without prejudice (if the Court grants the motion to withdraw). The Court directs Plaintiffs' counsel to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiffs, and file a certificate of service. The Court directs Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel to continue their dialogue, as previously directed. Mailed notice |
| 05/27/2022 | STATUS Report by Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. |
| 05/23/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion to seal (Dckt. No. 156) is hereby granted. Attorney Kelly has filed a motion to withdraw, based on a fee issue with Plaintiffs. (Dckt. No. 154) Plaintiffs are corporate entities, and thus cannot represent themselves. By May 27, 2022, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel must file an update about the status of their discussions. Specifically, Plaintiffs must reveal whether they have made efforts to retain alternate counsel, and if so, when that counsel will enter an appearance. Plaintiffs cannot proceed with this case, and Plaintiffs' counsel seeks leave to withdraw. So Plaintiffs must address whether they plan to go forward with this litigation, and if so, how. Mailed notice. |
| 05/19/2022 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. |
| 05/19/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. to seal |
| 05/19/2022 | DECLARATION of Adam Kelly (REDACTED) regarding motion to withdraw as attorney, 154 |
| 05/19/2022 | MOTION by Attorney Adam Kelly to withdraw as attorney for Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. 附件： 1:Notification of Party Contact Information (Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd) 2:(Notification of Party Contact Information (Unicorn Global Inc.)) |
| 04/22/2022 | AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 4/22/2022. Mailed notice. |
| 03/28/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion to amend discovery schedule (Dckt. No. 144) is granted. Counsel shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court's proposed inbox: proposed_order_seeger@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice. |
| 02/22/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Runchenyun by Wei Wang |
| 02/04/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co. and Unicorn Global, Inc.'s partial motion to dismiss Defendant Runchenyun's amended counterclaim Count II (Dckt. No. 122) is hereby granted. On July 21, 2021, Defendant filed an amended answer (Dckt. No. 113), which included two counterclaims. The second counterclaim was entitled "Violation of Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510, et seq.)." See Am. Answer, at 19 (Dckt. No. 113). But the counterclaim itself alleged "tortious interference with prospective economic advantage." Id. at par. 8. Despite the citation to the Illinois statute, nothing in the counterclaim could support a claim under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In fact, in their response, Defendant makes clear that it intended to allege only tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and did not intend to bring a claim under the Illinois statute. See Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Mtn. to Dismiss, at 3 (Dckt. No. 138). So, the Court treats the second counterclaim as a tortious interference claim (and to the extent that it purported to bring a claim under the Illinois statute, it is dismissed). A claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage includes the following elements: "(1) a reasonable expectancy of entering into a valid business relationship, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the expectancy, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference by the defendant that induced or caused a breach or termination of the expectancy, and (4) damage to the plaintiff resulting from the defendant's interference." Foster v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 806 F.3d 967, 971 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Voyles v. Sandia Mortg. Corp., 196 Ill. 2d 288, 256 Ill. Dec. 289, 751 N.E.2d 1126, 1133 (2001)). Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the claim because it did not adequately plead a reasonable expectation of a valid business relationship, purposeful interference, or interference with a third party. See Pls.' Mem. in Support of Mtn. to Dismiss, at 47 (Dckt. No. 123). Defendant's counterclaim of tortious interference hinges on the idea that seeking a preliminary injunction against a competitor can be intentional and unjustified conduct that causes a termination of expected business. See Am. Answer, at par. 11. But Defendant "must. allege action by the interfering party directed towards the party with whom [Defendant] expects to do business." Schuler v. Abbot Lab'ys, 265 Ill. App. 3d 991, 203 Ill. Dec. 105, 639 N.E.2d 144, 147 (1993). A motion for preliminary injunction is action conducted by a plaintiff toward a defendant, not toward a third party. Here, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was not action directed at a third party, but rather was action directed at Defendant, so it cannot support a claim. Defendant attempts to save the counterclaim by attaching a second amended answer with an amended counterclaim. But that fix doesn't fix anything. The amended counterclaim alleges that "Plaintiffs provided the injunction order to Amazon requesting Amazon to suspend Runchenyun's account and restrain Runchenyun's asset." See Second Am. Answer, at par. 29. But Plaintiffs did, in fact, seek and obtain a preliminary injunction. See Preliminary Injunction Order (Dckt. No. 63). True, about three months later, the Court vacated the injunction for lack of service (and not because there was something wrong with the substance of the injunction). See 6/28/21 Order (Dckt. No. 105). But that vacatur does not change the fact that the injunction was in place when Plaintiffs notified Amazon. Notifying Amazon of an injunction that was in place at the time is not intentional and unjustified interference. It's telling the truth about the existence of a lawful Order. "There is no liability for interference with a prospective contractual relation on the part of one who merely gives truthful information to another." Soderlund Bros., Inc. v. Carrier Corp., 278 Ill. App. 3d 606, 215 Ill. Dec. 251, 663 N.E.2d 1, 10 (1995); see also Atanus v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 403 Ill. App. 3d 549, 342 Ill. Dec. 583, 932 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (2010); F:A J Kikson v. Underwriters Lab'ys, Inc., 492 F.3d 794, 800 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court has "broad discretion to deny leave to amend where there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the defendants, or where the amendment would be futile." Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 807 (7th Cir. 2015). Here, the amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs told the truth when they informed Amazon that a preliminary injunction existed against Defendant, and telling the truth is not a tort. Nothing in Defendant's proposed second amended answer changes that fact. Defendant's motion to amend is denied, and Plaintiffs' partial motion to dismiss is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 02/04/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Runchenyun's motion for summary judgment (Dckt. No. 110) is hereby denied. Defendant filed a threadbare motion for summary judgment based on only three facts. See Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts (Dckt. No. 114). Defendant basically argues that it did not infringe Plaintiffs' patents because Defendant itself has rights to use a different patent. Specifically, Defendant argues that the accused product (a hoverboard) is based on a valid U.S. patent, called the D'857 patent, which Defendant has a right to use. See Def.'s Mtn. for Summ. J., at 3-4. Then, Defendant compared the drawings of the D'857 patent and the drawings of Plaintiffs' patents. According to Defendant, an ordinary observer would recognize the similarities between Defendant's hoverboard and the D'857 patent. Also, an ordinary observer would see the dissimilarities between Plaintiffs' hoverboard and the D'857 patent. Id. at 4-11. The argument seems to be that Defendant's product is based on Patent X, so it cannot infringe on Patents A, B, C, and D. Defendant's argument fails, for a couple reasons. First, the fact that Defendant has a right to use the D'857 patent does not defeat the claim. A right to use the D'857 patent does not mean that Defendant is not infringing Plaintiff's patent. A company can use one of its own patents, and infringe someone else's patents, at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. So, Defendant might be able to use the D'857 patent, but that tells the Court nothing about its rights in connection with Plaintiffs' patents. Second, based on the record, there are genuine issues of material fact about infringement. Defendant provided only three facts in their Rule 56.1 statement, none of which had anything to do with infringement. See Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts (Dckt. No. 114). Even if the Court went searching through Defendant's evidence, not much is there. The only evidence Defendant presented that supports noninfringement was an affidavit from Defendant's Marketing Director, who stated that "[t]he accused product is very different from" Plaintiffs' patents. See Zhang Aff., at par. 6 (Dckt. No. 114 -3). The affidavit is conclusory. See L.R. 56.1. The affidavit points to differences between the products as highlighted (with colored boxes and arrows) in Defendant's brief. The memorandum then showed drawings of the patents and a picture of the accused product, pointing out the differences that Zhang apparently noted, but without any citation to evidence explaining those differences. See Def.'s Mtn. for Summ. J., at 6-11. These differences are all ornamental features of the product and patents, such as the wheels, grooves, and design of the bottom. But "a piecemeal approach, considering only if design elements independently affect the overall visual impression that the designs are similar, is at odds with [the Federal Circuit's] case law requiring the fact-finder to analyze the design as a whole." Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Serious Innovative Accessories, Inc., 942 F.3d 1119, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2019). So, Defendant's showing was cursory and conclusory, and did not consider the design as a whole. But even then, Plaintiffs provided evidence of their own. Namely, they offered an expert declaration, explaining why Defendant's arguments are about trivial, unimportant details. See Hatch Dec. (Dckt. No. 128). That declaration asserted, for instance, that the grooves and wheels are unclaimed in the patents, and thus cannot affect the infringement analysis. Id. at 9-10. And he pointed to a previous declaration that he filed, which offered reason to believe that Defendant's product, when considered as a whole, does infringe Plaintiffs' patents. Id. at 11. Overall, Defendant has not come close to showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact about infringement. Defendant provided almost no evidence, and in response, Plaintiffs provided more than enough to keep the case alive. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Mailed notice. |
| 02/04/2022 | RESPONSE by Runchenyunin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Unicorn Global, Inc. to amend/correct text entry, 126 / Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Discovery Schedule 144 附件： 1:Exhibit Email Communications 2:Exhibit Minute Order in case 20-cv-03375, Dkt. 192 3:Exhibit Measures and Important notes for Tourists Visiting Macao 4:Exhibit Minute Order in case 20-cv-04806 5:(Exhibit Statements of Related Cases) |
| 02/04/2022 | Defendant Runchenyun's Final Non-Infringement Contention - Served on Feb 1, 2022 by Runchenyun |
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
