最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-00901
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 07/01/2024 | FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado on 7/1/2024. |
| 07/01/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's proposed judgment order to the Court's email box, which will now be entered, and the case closed. Enter Judgment order. The thirteen-thousand-dollar ($13,000) surety bond posted by Plaintiff in connection with the temporary restraining order previously entered in this case (Dkt. 19) and retained in connection with the preliminary injunction order previously entered in this case (Dkt. 30) is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. Civil case terminated. |
| 06/27/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado: Motion hearing held on 6/27/24 via WebEx video conference. No Defendant appeared. The Court granted Plaintiff's oral motion to seal the hearing, finding good cause in light of the sensitive information discussed, including confidential settlement information. The Court heard argument from Plaintiff's counsel and testimony from Dr. Cao on the justification for Plaintiff's requested damages, including its request for a reasonable royalty award of $500,000 per defendant, transaction costs, treble damages, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment as to all defendants [33] is granted. Based on its review of Plaintiff's briefing, as well as testimony, evidence, and argument presented at the hearing, the Court finds, pursuant to 35. U.S.C � 284, that Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $1,003,846.15 per defaulting defendant, which includes $500,000.00 per defendant as expected reasonable royalty for the subject patents, $3,846.15 in expected transaction costs per defendant, and enhanced damages for willful infringement of $500,000.00 per defendant. The Court notes that, although Plaintiff requested trebling its damages award as enhanced damages, the Court has discretion under 35. U.S.C � 284 to determine the amount of enhanced damages, if any. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 104 (2016) ("District courts enjoy discretion in deciding whether to award enhanced damages, and in what amount."). Based on its review of the record, the Court finds enhanced damages of $500,000, or doubling the amount of the reasonable royalty award, is appropriate based on Defaulting Defendants' willful infringement. Finally, the Court awards Plaintiff's counsel attorneys' fees of $28,708.08, to be divided amongst all thirteen (13) Defaulting Defendants ($2,208.31 per Defaulting Defendant). Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposed final judgment order in Microsoft Word format to the Court's proposed order email inbox. Civil case terminated. |
| 05/24/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for default judgment as to All Defendants |
| 03/29/2024 | NEW PARTIES: Mfiajumall1019, mydenshine888, bussareps, amazingshop888, superdealsupplier, dentalmedvip66, fairwholesaleshop, schicelie, topwholesale99, easydeal999, bestmall66, jxauto1 and mulaechic added to case caption. |
| 03/27/2024 | PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado on 3/27/2024. |
| 03/27/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado:The Court set a 3/26/2024 deadline for Defendants to appear and respond to the motion for preliminary injunction, but no defendant has appeared or otherwise objected to Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 25 is therefore granted as unopposed. Enter Preliminary Injunction order. The Clerk is requested to unseal Plaintiff's Amended Schedule A to the Amended Complaint 3, and the temporary restraining order 19. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that the defendants listed on Amended Schedule A are added to the court's docket within five business days. Instructions for adding a party to the docket can be found on the Courts website at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_cmecf/pdfs/v60/Add_Terminate_Instructions.pdf. |
| 03/13/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. regarding text entry, 27 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 03/13/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 25. Plaintiff shall promptly file a certificate of service confirming that it has served Defendants with the motion for preliminary injunction, memorandum in support of the motion, and a copy of this minute order. Defendants shall have until 3/26/24 to appear and object to the entry of a preliminary injunction. If no such objection is filed, the preliminary injunction may be entered. |
| 03/12/2024 | MEMORANDUM by CAO Group, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction 25 附件： 1:Declaration of Sameeul Haque 2:(Exhibit 1) |
| 03/12/2024 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A |
| 03/12/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for preliminary injunction 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 03/12/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by CAO Group, Inc. as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A on 3/12/2024, answer due 4/2/2024. 附件： 1:Declaration of Kathryn Smith 2:(Exhibit A) |
| 02/29/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado: Plaintiff's motion for a 14-day extension of the TRO 21 is granted for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum. The TRO is extended until 3/14/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 02/28/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for Extension of Temporary Restraining Order |
| 02/16/2024 | SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 13,000 posted by CAO Group, Inc. (Document not Imaged) |
| 02/15/2024 | SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado on 2/15/2024. |
| 02/15/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado: For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's motions, the supporting memoranda, and the temporary restraining order, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, expedited discovery, 15 and motion for electronic service of process 17, are granted. Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis. Specifically, 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 the individuals and entities operating Defendant, stopping Defendant's infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by Plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and an injunction is in the public interest. 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. See, e.g., Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A," No. 20-CV-05049, 2021 WL 2894166, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2021) (finding electronic service proper in similar circumstances). Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. The Court also notes that, while some judges in this district, including the undersigned, have questioned the propriety of joinder of numerous defendants in such "Schedule A" cases, the Court finds that there are sufficient facts in the record to support joinder of the 13 named defendants in the Amended Schedule A at this time. The record reflects the Defendants each sell an identical product with similar descriptions, all on the same two commerce platforms. The Court thus finds joinder appropriate at least at this early pleading stage. If any defendant appears, they are free to raise any objection to joinder. Plaintiff shall deposit with the Clerk of Court thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000.00), either cash or surety bond, as security. |
| 02/14/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for Alternative Service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 02/14/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for temporary restraining order |
| 02/12/2024 | AMENDED complaint by CAO Group, Inc. against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A 附件： 1:Schedule A (Redacted) 2:Exhibit 1 (Redacted) 3:Exhibit 2 (Redacted) 4:Exhibit 3 (Redacted) 5:Exhibit 4 6:Exhibit 5 7:Exhibit 6 8:Exhibit 7 (Redacted) |
| 02/02/2024 | MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 02/02/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado:Plaintiff's motion to file under seal 3 is granted for the reasons stated in the motion. Upon review of the Schedule A of defendants, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims against 76 different named defendants. Plaintiff shall review the opinion in Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. The P'ships & Uninc. Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 19-cv-7878, 2020 WL 433870 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020), and file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder of all 76 defendants by 02/23/24. By the same deadline, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with a subset of the defendants along with a memo explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. |
| 02/01/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 02/01/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by CAO Group, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21591676. 附件： 1:Schedule A (Redacted) 2:Exhibit 1 (Redacted) 3:Exhibit 2 (Redacted) 4:Exhibit 3 (Redacted) 5:Exhibit 4 6:Exhibit 5 7:Exhibit 6 8:Exhibit 7 (Redacted) |
