最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-02495
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 06/03/2024 | ORDER Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 6/3/2024: Mailed notice. |
| 06/03/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal 30, which also notifies the Court that there are no remaining Defendants or pending issues in the case, and thus requests return of the bond. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to return the bond 30. The ten thousand dollar ($10,000.00) cash bond posted by Plaintiff, including any interest minus the registry fee, is hereby released to Pete Scott Wolfgram of Stratum Law Llc. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the cash bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Pete Scott Wolfgram of Stratum Law Llc, 2424 E. York St., Philadelphia, PA 19125. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |
| 05/24/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This is a "Schedule A" case, which is a type of lawsuit typically filed against a group of sellers whose assumed names are listed on an attachment to the complaint, usually called "Schedule A." Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated, 2021 WL 308882, at *1 (N.D. Ill. January 30, 2021). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants. R. [18], Mot. Default; R. [18-1], Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [18] without prejudice for the following reasons. Plaintiff requests that the Court award the entire amount of the restrained balances in each Defaulting Defendant's Amazon account, totaling $102,007. Memo. Default at 11-12. Plaintiff also provided a declaration in support of its default motion stating that, "[b]y failing to respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions, each Defaulting Defendant admitted. that the restrained Amazon account balances are less than profits." R. 18-2, Wolfgram Decl. para. 8. However, the declaration also states, "Defaulting Defendants further admitted to. having a combined revenue of at least $68,223 USD, having combined profits of at least $17,055 USD, and having a combined restrained Amazon financial account balance of $102,007." Id. para. 9. The Court finds there to be inconsistencies between the admission that "the restrained Amazon account balances are less than profits" and the actual amounts of restrained balances and profits indicated in the declaration; specifically, the $84,953 gap between the $17,055 in profits and the $102,007 restrained. True, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), a defendant's failure to respond to a request for admit results in a matter being deemed admitted, so technically, if Defaulting Defendants failed to respond to a request to admit that "their restrained Amazon account balance [is] less than its profits," that is deemed admitted. Still, a plaintiff is not entitled to a windfall unsupported by the evidence when a defendant defaults. Here, Plaintiff provides information about the amount of Defaulting Defendant's profits, which obviously is a more accurate measure of the damages allowable under 35 U.S.C. � 289. Although Plaintiff does not specifically request damages in the amount of Defaulting Defendants' revenue, Plaintiff cites several cases in which a court has entered a profit award for the entire revenue amount where the infringer has failed to produce evidence as to the costs to be subtracted from revenue to calculate the profits. Memo. Default at 9-10 (collecting cases). This is certainly true, but the Court is still faced with the numbers provided by Plaintiff: that is, that Defaulting Defendants' profits total at least $17,055 and their revenue totals at least $68,223. Plaintiff does not explain where these amounts came from, or why it should be entitled to the $51,168 difference between profits and revenue, given Plaintiff was able to calculate the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits (which was not possible in the cited cases). In the alternative to its request for the entire restrained balances, Plaintiff requests "$204,669, treble the amount of the combined profits under 35 USC 284." Memo. at 11. True, enhanced damages up to three times the amount are allowed under Section 284, but the Court is not convinced such enhanced damages are necessarily appropriate here. Based on the Court's review of the cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, none awarded treble damages. Id. at 11-12 (collecting cases, all of which awarded $100,000 per defaulting defendant; in each of the cited cases, the court awarded $100,000 per defaulting defendant based on the unanswered Requests for Admission that the defaulting defendant's "profits from the sale of the Infringing Products totals more than $100,000." See, e.g., Oakley, Inc. v. ADVENTURER, et al, No. 20-cv-00277, Dkts. 56 at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3)), 56-3 at 2 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2020)). In a renewed default motion, Plaintiff must either request an award consisting of the amount of profits per Defaulting Defendant or explain, with supporting authority, why Plaintiff is entitled to either the amount restrained or the Defaulting Defendants' revenue when Plaintiff has evidence regarding Defaulting Defendants' profits. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits, any renewed motion must further support the basis for the request for enhanced damages and cite other patent "Schedule A" cases from this District, in which the court has awarded enhanced damages. Notices Mailed. |
| 05/24/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed the stipulation to dismiss between Plaintiff and Defendant MAOVUIO [23]. Pursuant to the stipulation and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Defendant MAOVUIO is dismissed from this case without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Defendant MAOVUIO's motion to dismiss [21] is terminated as moot. Notices Mailed. |
| 05/24/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motions, the Court grants: (1) the unopposed first motion of extension of time for defendant Edyo Living to respond to answer or otherwise plead [19] and (2) the parties' joint motion for Defendants Faceket, Mowpex, and Nebzhask to answer or otherwise plead [24]. Defendant Edyo Living's responsive pleading is now due on or before 6/14/2024, and Defendants Faceket, Mowpex, and Nebzhask responsive pleading is due on or before 6/21/2024. Notices Mailed. |
| 05/16/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for extension of time to file answer on behalf of Defendants Faceket, Mowpex, and Nebzhask (Defendants 9, 11, and 4, respectively) |
| 05/15/2024 | MOTION by Defendant MAOVUIO to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| 05/15/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for extension of time to file answer Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Negotiate Settlement on Behalf of Defendant Edyo Living |
| 05/15/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for default judgment as to Defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 |
| 04/30/2024 | NEW PARTIES: PAKASEPT, WHATWEARS65522, MOOLIVE, NEBZHASK, MAOVUIO, TANGKULA, BONBOIS, EDYO LIVING, FACEKET, JENSER and MOWPEX added to case caption. |
| 04/29/2024 | PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 4/29/2024. |
| 04/29/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama:On the grounds set forth in the motion, Plaintiff's motion for an entry of a preliminary injunction 15 is granted. Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. The following documents are to be unsealed: Plaintiff's Motions for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order and the exhibits thereto 7, 8 and the Temporary Restraining Order 11. Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to add ALL Defendant names listed in the Schedule A to the docket within three business days. |
| 04/25/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for preliminary injunction 附件： 1:Supplement Brief in Support 2:Declaration Pete Wolfgram 3:(Declaration Wei Shen) |
| 04/19/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, Plaintiff's motion to deposit funds with the Court 12, in accordance with the Court's TRO 11 is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 04/19/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by New BKFarmhouse Inc. as to Defendant No. 3 (Moolive) |
| 04/18/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. to deposit funds with the Court. (Received at the Intake Counter on 4/18/24.) |
| 04/12/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 4/12/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 04/12/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motions, the Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal 7, 9. The following documents may remain under seal: (1) Schedule A to the Complaint; (2) Exhibit 1 to the Complaint, containing Defendants' product listings; (3) Exhibit 2 to the Complaint, containing Plaintiff's Patent; and (3) Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 8. Provided that Plaintiff provides the security described in paragraph 8 of the temporary restraining order, the temporary restraining order shall become effective on 4/16/2024 at 6:00 p.m. and shall expire in fourteen (14) days from the effective date. The Court finds that joinder of the "Schedule A" Defendants is proper at this preliminary stage. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). The Court notes that no Defendants are prejudiced by permitting joinder at this juncture. See Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511, 517 (N.D. Ill. 2020). To the extent any defendant appears and objects to joinder, the Court will revisit the issue and is free to sever certain defendants from the case under Rule 21 at that time. Mailed notice. |
| 04/10/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. to seal MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF |
| 04/10/2024 | SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. FOR ENTRY OF A SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF (Attachments: # (1) Supplement TRO Brief, # (2) Declaration by Shen) |
| 04/10/2024 | SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # (2) Exhibit 1, # (3) Exhibit 2, # (4) Exhibit Schedule A) |
| 04/02/2024 | 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. |
| 04/02/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
| 03/28/2024 | Schedule A by New BKFarmhouse Inc. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:(Exhibit 2) |
| 03/28/2024 | MAILED Patent Request Letter to Plaintiff's counsel Pete Wolfgram and Xiyan Zhang. |
| 03/28/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. by Pete Scott Wolfgram |
| 03/27/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. by Xiyan Zhang |
| 03/27/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 03/27/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by New BKFarmhouse Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21792791. |
