最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-07124
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 12/19/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 12/19/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 12/19/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery 24, motion for alternative service 26, and motion for leave to file status report instanter 28 are granted. For the purpose of the motions cited above, plaintiff's filings support proceeding on an ex parte basis at this time. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendant to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, the Court finds that it is likely that its assets and website would be redirected, thus defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendant, stopping defendant's infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by plaintiff shows 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 products, and there is no countervailing harm to defendant from an order directing it 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 defendant. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendant and to implement the asset freeze. Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) if appropriate no later than 12/26/2024. Telephone status hearing is set for 1/2/2025 at 9:15 a.m. By the close of business on 12/19/2024, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed temporary restraining order to the Court's proposed order inbox for entry. Mailed notice |
| 12/18/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for leave to file its Status Report |
| 12/18/2024 | STATUS Report by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC |
| 12/18/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for Alternative Service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 12/18/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 24 附件： 1:Declaration of Nicholas S. Lee 2:(Exhibit 1) |
| 12/18/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 12/10/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff has filed an amended Schedule A against one defendant 22 as directed by the Court. By 12/17/2024, Plaintiff shall file a status report indicating how it plans to proceed with respect to the defendant. Mailed notice |
| 11/25/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC Amended Schedule A |
| 11/18/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: On 10/16/2024, the Court found that the complaint and joinder memorandum did not satisfy the joinder requirements for a single patent and trademark lawsuit against 81 Schedule A defendants. To remedy the misjoinder, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the joined defendants without prejudice. In response, plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration and expedited discovery to "determine if there is a link between any of the defendants." Doc. 19 at 3. Plaintiff's motion 19 is denied. Consistent with the Court's prior order, plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended Schedule A against one defendant or a much smaller group of defendants if plaintiff can establish that joinder is proper by 11/25/2024. Mailed notice |
| 11/15/2024 | STATUS Report by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC |
| 11/15/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for reconsideration regarding order on motion for miscellaneous relief, order on motion for temporary restraining order, terminate motions, 17, MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for Expedited Discovery 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 11/08/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff shall file a status report with an update on the case by 11/15/2024. Mailed notice |
| 10/16/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder 15 and determines, within its discretion, that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of 81 defendants is proper in this matter. Plaintiff argues that defendants are properly joined because this case "asserts both trademark and utility patent infringement, as opposed to typical Schedule A cases which predominantly assert trademark and/or copyright infringement." Doc. 15 at 2. According to plaintiff, joinder is proper at this preliminary stage of the litigation given "the implications unique to utility patent infringement casesparticularly with respect to claim construction and the statutory allowance of joinder for pre-trial matters." Id. Plaintiff is correct that 35 U.S.C. § 299 governs joinder in patent cases. That statute provides, in relevant part: "[P]arties that are accused [patent] infringers may be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, 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." 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). Importantly, joinder is improper where "accused infringers" are joined "based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit." Id. at § 299(b). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that its claims against all defendants listed in Schedule A may be properly joined in the same case in accordance with Section 299's same transaction-or-occurrence test. At bottom, plaintiff claims that joinder is proper because all of the defendants are using a subset of product images from a larger collection of images for their listings. Doc. 15 at 5-6. Plaintiff has not cited any authority demonstrating that defendants selling the same alleged infringing product and using several images from the same larger subset of images in their listings satisfies Section 299's same transaction or occurrence requirement. The Court recognizes that plaintiff also asserts claims against defendants for trademark infringement. However, under Rule 20's joinder requirements for non-patent cases, plaintiff has not demonstrated a logical relationship among all 81 defendants. "[I]t is not enough for a plaintiff to simply allege that multiple defendants have infringed the same patent or trademark to meet Rule 20's requirements." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. The Partnerships, et al., 334 F.R.D. 182, 187 (N.D. Ill. 2020); see also ThermaPure, Inc. v. Temp-Air, Inc., 2010 WL 5419090, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2010). Moreover, use of the same small number of product images by each of the defendants does not support joinder. "Even if the webpages were identical, it would not necessarily suggest the defendants are connected. To the contrary, it would hardly be surprising that multiple, independent sellers of similar products would parrot each other's webpages or match each other's prices." Tang v. Schedule A, 2024 WL 68332, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024); see also Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd., et al. v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 20-cv-00845 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2020) (Lee, J.) ("defendants with nearly identical product descriptions may in fact share no ties, with each simply copying the same description from elsewhere."). Within its discretion, on this record, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to show that defendants' actions were performed in concert or connected in any way under Section 299 or Rule 20. See Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185 (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). As a result, joinder is improper here. To remedy this misjoinder, plaintiff requests severance and then consolidation of the severed cases for pre-trial proceedings instead of dismissal. Plaintiff also argues that it would be improper to sever the claims against any of the defendants at this stage because the defendants can waive Section 299's joinder requirements. See 35 U.S.C. § 299(c). The Seventh Circuit has held that the proper remedy for misjoinder is "severance or dismissal without prejudice." UWM Student Ass'n v. Lovell, 888 F.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2018). Moreover, the Court has authority to dismiss parties not only by motion of a party but also based on the Court's review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 ("On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party."). On this basis, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss all of the joined defendants from this case without prejudice. H-D U.S.A. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 2021 WL 780486, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2021) ("The Seventh Circuit has recognized the broad discretion that district courts have in remedying misjoinder, so long as the court's decision avoids unnecessary harm to the parties."). If plaintiff refiles its claims against defendants in separate cases in this district and moves for consolidation of pretrial proceedings, the issue can be addressed at that time. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 11 and motion for alternative service 13 are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile its motions consistent with this Order. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 4 is granted. Mailed notice |
| 09/13/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The joinder issue remains under advisement. Telephone status hearing set for 9/19/2024 is stricken. Mailed notice |
| 09/09/2024 | MEMORANDUM set/reset hearings, 14 by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC Regarding the Propriety of Joinder |
| 08/26/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal 4, plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 11, and plaintiff's motion for alternative 13 are entered and continued. Upon review of the complaint and the TRO submissions, the Court sua sponte raises the proprietary of joinder of over 80 defendants in this case. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). By 9/9/2024, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described in Estee Lauder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint with a smaller subset of defendants along with its memorandum explaining specifically why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189. A telephone status hearing is set for 9/19/2024 at 9:15 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing but will be placed on mute. The call-in number is (855) 244-8681 and the access code is 172 628 1276##. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Mailed notice |
| 08/23/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLCfor Alternative Service |
| 08/23/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 11 附件： 1:Declaration of Nicholas S. Lee 2:(Exhibit 1) |
| 08/23/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for temporary restraining order |
| 08/12/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC by Nicholas S. Lee |
| 08/12/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC by Sameeul Haque |
| 08/12/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC by Benjamin Adam Campbell |
| 08/12/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC by Edward L. Bishop |
| 08/12/2024 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC |
| 08/12/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC Unredacted Complaint 附件： 1:Schedule A 2:Exhibit 1A 3:Exhibit 1B 4:Exhibit 1C 5:Exhibit 2 6:Exhibit 3 7:Exhibit 4 8:Exhibit 8 9:(Notice of Claims) |
| 08/12/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal |
| 08/12/2024 | Notice of Claims by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC |
| 08/12/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 08/12/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Wiesner Healthcare Innovation LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22354301. 附件： 1:Schedule A (Redacted) 2:Exhibit 1 (Redacted) 3:Exhibit 2 (Redacted) 4:Exhibit 3 (Redacted) 5:Exhibit 4 (Redacted) 6:Exhibit 5 7:Exhibit 6 8:Exhibit 7 9:(Exhibit 8 (Redacted)) |
