最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-05419
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 10/31/2024 | FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 40 in the amount of the Judgement Amounts as to certain defendants |
| 08/19/2024 | FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/19/2024.Mailed notice |
| 08/19/2024 | ORDER: All remaining Defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, no remaining Defendant against whom default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative. Written notice of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, therefore, is not required, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), and the motion (Dkt. 36) seeking a default judgment is granted. Because Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant Internet Store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet Stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase infringing products. See, e.g., Dkt. 16, 17. In addition, 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 is warranted. The infringement of Plaintiff's patent irreparably harms Plaintiff and confuses the public.Based on the foregoing, the Court awards Plaintiff the damages amounts set forth in the separate final judgment order based upon an accounting of the profits made by each Defaulting Defendant, which amounts are, again, not contested by any Defaulting Defendant.Enter separate Final Judgment Order. Plaintiff's pending motion (Dkt. 25) seeking a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated.SO ORDERED in No. 24-cv-05419. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/19/2024.Mailed notice |
| 08/15/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[37] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 08/15/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment[36] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 08/15/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants 附件： 1:Exhibit A |
| 08/08/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendants |
| 07/23/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 7/23/2024, answer due 8/13/2024. 附件： 1:Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner 2:(Exhibit A) |
| 07/23/2024 | DECLARATION of Berel Y. Lakovitsky regarding memorandum in support of motion 32 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 07/23/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction 31 |
| 07/23/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 07/16/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. regarding text entry, 29 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 07/16/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 25 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 07/22/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the order entering the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the TRO is 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). Should this extension exceed the maximum duration for a TRO under FRCP 65(b), it will become "in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order [will] remain[] effective." Id. at 844. Mailed notice. |
| 07/12/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 7/12/2024, answer due 8/2/2024. 附件： 1:Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner 2:Exhibit A |
| 07/12/2024 | DECLARATION of Berel Y. Lakovitsky regarding memorandum in support of motion[26] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 07/12/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction[25] |
| 07/12/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants 附件： 1:Exhibit A |
| 07/10/2024 | SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000.00 posted by Oakley, Inc. (Document not scanned) |
| 07/08/2024 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 07/05/2024 | Registry Deposit Information Form by Oakley, Inc. |
| 07/03/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/3/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 07/03/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [4], ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [13], and motion for electronic service of process [18] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 16 917) 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 [2], [3], and [17]. 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 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 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. 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. |
| 07/01/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[19] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 |
| 07/01/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[18] |
| 07/01/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 07/01/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 2 - Parts 1-2 regarding declaration[16] |
| 07/01/2024 | DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion[14] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 07/01/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[14] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 |
| 07/01/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order[13] |
| 07/01/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 06/28/2024 | MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 06/28/2024 | 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. |
| 06/28/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
| 06/27/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Thomas Joseph Juettner |
| 06/27/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky |
| 06/27/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler |
| 06/27/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio |
| 06/27/2024 | Notice of Claims Involving Patents by Oakley, Inc. |
| 06/27/2024 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Oakley, Inc. |
| 06/27/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 06/27/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for leave to file under seal |
| 06/27/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 1 - Parts 1-2 regarding complaint[1] |
| 06/27/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1] |
| 06/27/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Oakley, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22190025. 附件： 1:Exhibit 2 2:Exhibit 3 3:Exhibit 4 4:Exhibit 5 |
