最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-03340
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 08/16/2024 | FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment as to a certain Defendant |
| 08/13/2024 | FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/13/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 08/13/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: No remaining Defendant has responded to Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion [43] is granted. Based on the evidence previously submitted by Plaintiff and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, Plaintiff has established that a permanent injunction should be entered. The infringement of Plaintiff's patent irreparably harms Plaintiff and confuses the public. Enter separate final judgment order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |
| 08/07/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Patent One LLC in support of motion for default judgment 43 附件： 1:(Declaration of Shengmao Mu) |
| 08/07/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for default judgment as to defaulting defendants |
| 08/07/2024 | STIPULATION of Dismissal as to Defendant ZNCMRR |
| 07/31/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment 39 is granted in part and denied in part. All remaining Defendants except for ZNCMRR have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default against those Defendants is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice. FRCP 54(b) says that a court "may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Plaintiff has not attempted to show that there is "no just reason to delay" a partial final judgment. It is doubtful that Plaintiff could make that showing, given the allegation at Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint that Defendants "appear to be an interrelated group of counterfeiters and infringers." Plaintiff ought to be precluded from making that assertion at the outset of this case (in large part to justify the joinder of multiple Defendants in "Schedule A") only to avoid its implications at judgment time. ZNCMRR remains in the case and has answered the complaint; so long as that Defendant remains, partial final judgment isn't warranted. Mailed notice |
| 07/31/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Patent One LLC in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 39 附件： 1:(Declaration of Shengmao Mu) |
| 07/31/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for default judgment as to defaulting defendants |
| 07/31/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Patent One LLC as to certain Defendants |
| 07/29/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Patent One LLC by Abby Marie Neu |
| 07/25/2024 | NEW PARTIES: ABSOFINE, Alphyse House, Hkitriy, KOOHOAMZ, Lightingjoy, limengyangsdf, QiYuwangke and SafeHouseware added to case caption. Terminating The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint |
| 07/25/2024 | PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/25/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 07/25/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 27 is granted. Enter separate preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff's filings establish that Plaintiff has acted expeditiously to protect its interests and that there remains a significant risk Defendants will transfer relevant assets beyond the Court's reach. For these reasons, as well as the reasons provided in the whole of Plaintiff's filings and as stated by the Court in connection with entry of the TRO, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff and that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from the marketing of counterfeit or infringing goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established 30 32 that it provided electronic notice to Defendants of the pendency of this case and provided a link to a website containing relevant case documents, but, despite the Court having provided 31 the opportunity to do so, no Defendant has objected to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all Defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the docket within five business days. The Clerk is directed to unseal any and all previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice. |
| 07/24/2024 | ANSWER to amended complaint by ZNCMRR |
| 07/15/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant ZNCMRR by Haipeng Xiao |
| 07/13/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Patent One LLC regarding text entry, [31] |
| 07/12/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion [27] for entry of a preliminary injunction. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith serve all Defendants with the following statement: "The Court has taken the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement and will consider the motion unopposed if no Defendant appears and objects on or before 7/17/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the Court's orders entering and extending the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), as well as in Plaintiff's earlier motion [21] to extend the TRO, the TRO is further extended to and including the date on which the Court adjudicates the motion for a preliminary injunction. See H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 843-45 (7th Cir. 2012). Because this extension exceeds the maximum duration for a TRO under FRCP 65(b), this extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective." Id. at 844. Mailed notice. |
| 07/03/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patent One LLC as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint on 7/3/2024, answer due 7/24/2024. |
| 07/03/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Patent One LLC regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for preliminary injunction 27 |
| 07/03/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Patent One LLC in support of motion for preliminary injunction 27 |
| 07/03/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for preliminary injunction |
| 06/27/2024 | ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/27/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 06/27/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to extend TRO 20 is granted. Enter separate order. Mailed notice. |
| 06/26/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Patent One LLC as to a certain Defendant |
| 06/21/2024 | SURETY BOND in the amount of $ $10,000.00 posted by Patent One LLC |
| 06/18/2024 | AFFIDAVIT by Plaintiff Patent One LLC in Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for extension of time [20] |
| 06/18/2024 | MEMORANDUM extension of time[20] by Patent One LLC |
| 06/18/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for extension of time |
| 06/12/2024 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint |
| 06/12/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Patent One LLC by Keaton David Smith |
| 06/11/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/11/2024. |
| 06/11/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint [2], motion for leave to file under seal [7], motion for leave to file electronic service of process [11], and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [15] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 15 911) 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. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries [8], [9], [14], and [15]. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also 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 and counterfeit 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 counterfeit and 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 both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), 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. |
| 05/30/2024 | MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 04/25/2024 | NEW PARTIES: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint added to case caption. |
| 04/25/2024 | 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. |
| 04/25/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
| 04/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Patent One LLC Yu Declaration |
| 04/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Patent One LLC memorandum in support of TRO |
| 04/25/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for temporary restraining order |
| 04/25/2024 | MEMORANDUM motion for service by publication 11 by Patent One LLC |
| 04/25/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for service by publication |
| 04/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Patent One LLC Exhibit 2 |
| 04/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Patent One LLC Exhibit 1 |
| 04/25/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Patent One LLC Sechedule A |
| 04/25/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC to seal |
| 04/25/2024 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Patent One LLC |
| 04/25/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Patent One LLC by Shengmao Mu |
| 04/25/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 04/25/2024 | AMENDED complaint by Patent One LLC against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint |
| 04/25/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for leave to file First Amended Complaint |
| 04/25/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Patent One LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21896765. |
