最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-05280
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 12/15/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited for extension of time of TRO |
| 12/12/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited Notice of Settlement and Dismissal Under Rule 41(A)(1) as to Certain Defendant |
| 12/02/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 12/2/2024. |
| 12/02/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 7, and motion for electronic service of process 11 are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 8 6-8) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff's patented works to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action, but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. The disabling of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice. |
| 10/23/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's "Motion for Decision" 18 is denied. Plaintiff's pending "Schedule A" routine motions, of which the Court is aware, will be addressed in due course. Mailed notice |
| 10/22/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited for hearing re MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for temporary restraining order and expedited discovery 7 |
| 08/08/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited by Zhiwei Hua |
| 08/08/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited by Qin Li |
| 08/08/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 08/08/2024 | AMENDED complaint by John Doe against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 附件： 1:Exhibit Patent registration 2:Exhibit Patent registration 3:Exhibit patent registration 4:Exhibit Patent registration 5:(Exhibit redline version of the amended complaint per standing orders) |
| 08/02/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion 12 for leave to file under seal and to proceed anonymously is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's submissions establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Conversely, there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify allowing Plaintiff to conceal its own identity: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for preliminary injunctive relief will be adjudicated in the ordinary course of so-called "Schedule A" litigation, and the identity of Defendants will be placed under seal during the pendency of the ex parte proceedings. Given these protections for Plaintiff's legitimate interests, the countervailing strong public interest in knowing who is seeking recourse in the federal courts compels the Court to deny Plaintiff's request to conceal its own identity, even initially. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "We have repeatedly voiced our disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016); see also Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005) ("The public has an interest in knowing what the judicial system is doing, an interest frustrated when any part of litigation is conducted in secret."); Doe v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 101 F.4th 485, 493 (7th Cir. 2024) (district judge "abused his discretion when permitting 'John Doe' to conceal his name without finding that he is a minor, is at risk of physical harm, or faces improper retaliation."). Such exceptional circumstances as to justify anonymity are not present in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion proceed anonymously is denied. Subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file the documents appearing at docket entries 3, 9, and 10. Plaintiff's request to file the documents appearing at docket entry 2 is denied, as Plaintiff is not entitled to hide the relevant information concerning its asserted patent. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint bearing its true name (not under seal) within 5 business days or the case will be dismissed with prejudice. All other pending motions will be addressed by separate order in due course. Mailed notice. |
| 07/30/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for leave to file under seal and to proceed under a pseudonym |
| 07/30/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe electronic service of process pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3) 附件： 1:Declaration of Li in support of Motion to electronic service of process 2:Exhibit 1 of Declaration of Li 3:(Exhibit 2 of Declaration of Li) |
| 07/30/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibits 1-7 of Plaintiff's Declaration regarding sealed document 9 附件： 1:Exhibit 1-1 2:Exhibit 1-2 3:Exhibit 1-3 4:Exhibit 1-4 5:Exhibit 2 6:Exhibit 3-1 7:Exhibit 3-2 8:Exhibit 3-3 9:Exhibit 3-4 10:Exhibit 3-5 11:Exhibit 3-6 12:Exhibit 4 13:Exhibit 5 14:Exhibit 6 15:(Exhibit 7) |
| 07/30/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Declaration of Plaintiff in Support of Motion for TRO and Expedited Discovery |
| 07/30/2024 | DECLARATION of Qin Li regarding motion for temporary restraining order 7 and expedited discovery 附件： 1:Exhibit to Declaration of Attorney 2:Exhibit to Declaration of Attorney 3:Exhibit to Declaration of Attorney 4:(Exhibit to Declaration of Attorney) |
| 07/30/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for temporary restraining order and expedited discovery |
| 07/30/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Zhiwei Hua |
| 06/25/2024 | CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. |
| 06/25/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
| 06/25/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 06/25/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Qin Li |
| 06/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe |
| 06/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe 附件： 1:Exhibit Patent registration 2:Exhibit patent registration 3:(Exhibit patent registration) |
| 06/25/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by John Doe; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22176245. 附件： 1:Exhibit Patent registration 2:(Exhibit Schedule A defendants) |
