最近更新：无记录
2024-cv-07326
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 08/23/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has initiated a patent and trade dress infringement case against 20 Defendants and seeks to proceed, at least initially, via pseudonym. See 1, 5. Plaintiff also seeks leave to temporarily seal its complaint, the "Schedule A" listing the named Defendants, copies of screenshot evidence demonstrating Defendants' sales of allegedly infringing products, and copies of Plaintiff's patents and intellectual property registrations, 4. "No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and particularly in this Circuit." XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly voiced its 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." Id. (citing Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016); Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff simply filed its complaint using a pseudonym, without leave, and without any effort to justify the tactic. Yet, many cases just like this are filed every day in this District without anonymous plaintiffs, and the Court has no reason to think that the requested sealing order (which would prevent Defendants from learning that they have been sued) remains insufficient by itself to alleviate any concerns Plaintiff may have about disclosing its identity. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify itself on any of the pending pleadings, the Court dismisses the complaint 1 without prejudice and denies without prejudice the motions to seal 4, for leave to file excess pages 6, and for a TRO 7. The 8/28/24 Notice of Motion date is stricken as to all motions. If Plaintiff elects to pursue an amended complaint and revised motions, it should ensure that its pleadings provide a factual and legal basis to join all 20 Defendants in a single suit. Under 35 U.S.C. § 299, "parties that are accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants. only if-- (1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action. Id. § 299(a). The statute specifically provides that "accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants. based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit." Id. § 299(b). Similarly, joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright or trademark infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). The initial complaint lumps all Defendants together and alleges, in a conclusory manner, that joinder is proper because "the Defendants are all offering for sale at least one of the same infringing products and this case will involve common questions of fact to all Defendants and the Defendants' infringing acts arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences related to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same and similar accused products. 5 at 5. If Plaintiff pursues an amended complaint and revised motions, it should ensure that its pleadings support joinder of all Defendants and that its submissions demonstrate a likelihood of success as to each Defendant on each asserted claim. Plaintiff should also ensure that its submissions support the exercise of personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; in this regard, the mere maintenance of a website, even a fully interactive website accessible in Illinois, remains insufficient. E.g., Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). Thus, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each Defendant has actually shipped infringing goods to residents of Illinois. See also NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 624 (7th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 577, 214 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2023) (finding personal jurisdiction appropriate where Defendant purposefully directed its activities to Illinois establishing an online store, using a third-party retailer, Amazon.com, unequivocally asserting through this store a willingness to ship goods to Illinois and an established capacity to do so, and then filling orders by intentionally shipping infringing product to the customer's designated Illinois address). Mailed notice. |
| 08/16/2024 | NOTICE of Motion by James Edward Judge for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 6, Sealed motion, 7, motion for leave to file 4 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 8/28/2024 at 11:00 AM. |
| 08/16/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff CG, INC. by Zareefa Burki Flener |
| 08/16/2024 | SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff CG, INC. for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Alternative Service 附件： 1:Brief In Support of Motion 2:Plaintiff Declaration 3:Ex. 1 4:Ex. 2 5:Ex. 3 6:Ex. 4 7:Ex. 5 8:Ex. 6 9:Ex.7 10:Ex. 8 11:Ex. 9 12:Ex. 10 13:Ex. 11 14:Ex. 12 15:Ex. 13 16:Ex. 14 17:Ex. 15 Pt. 1 18:Ex. 15 Pt. 2 19:Ex. 16 Pt. 1 20:Ex. 16 Pt. 2 21:Ex. 16 Pt. 3 22:Ex. 16 Pt. 4 23:(Ex. 17) |
| 08/16/2024 | 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. |
| 08/16/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
| 08/16/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CG, INC. for leave to file excess pages |
| 08/15/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff CG, INC. Unredacted Complaint 附件： 1:Schedule A 2:Ex.1 Pt.1 3:Ex.1 Pt.2 4:Ex.1 Pt.3 5:Ex.1 Pt.4 6:Ex.1 Pt.5 7:Ex.1 Pt.6 8:Ex.1 Pt.7 9:Ex.2 10:Ex.3 11:Ex.4 12:Ex.5 13:Ex.8 14:Ex.9 15:Ex.10 16:(Ex.11) |
| 08/15/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CG, INC. for leave to file Documents Under Seal |
| 08/15/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff CG, INC. by James Edward Judge |
| 08/15/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 08/15/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by CG, INC.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22369757. 附件： 1:Schedule A 2:Ex.1 3:Ex.2 4:Ex.3 5:Ex.4 6:Ex.5 7:Ex.6 8:Ex.7 9:Ex.8 10:Ex.9 11:Ex.10 12:(Ex.11) |
