2025-cv-09869 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：Alioth Law LLP
品牌：手表保护壳专利
小提示：专注TRO和解/应诉，需要起诉文件/被告名单/其他帮助可联系我们，微信右上角“···”可全文翻译/分享找队友/订阅可自动推送此案最新进展
微信扫码联系我们
| # | Date | Description |
| 13 |
09/09/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff has amended the Schedule A from 344 to 142 defendants. The Court finds joinder improper based on the lack of justification as to why each defendant is properly joined to the others. The Court is concerned by Plaintiff's failure to follow the Court's explicit instructions in 7. First, this Court asked for a memorandum "explaining why each Defendant is properly joined to all of the others." Plaintiff generally asserts in its brief that the defendants share unique identifiers suggesting a strong connection, specifically because of "the use of similar marketing strategies, strategies, consistent elements in the design and dcor of their e-commerce stores, identical or similar payment methods, and similar product descriptions, prices, and images." Doc. 9 at 6-7. Yet Plaintiff mentions only five defendants in its memo, and even then does not discuss the apparent connections or similarities between them. Phrases like: "For some defendants, it is easy to find the connections between these defendant stores as they share very similar storefront facade, decor, and picture themes," Doc. 10 at 9, might be compelling if such phrases were then followed by an actual description of which defendants Plaintiff is describing and what parts of the storefronts match. But Plaintiff does not do so. Second, Plaintiff was directed to two specific cases by the Court: Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020) and Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025). Plaintiff does not cite either in its joinder memo, nor address their reasoning. Third, the resubmitted screenshots are still not clearly labeled as to the corresponding defendant and do not provide the date the screenshot was captured, making it impossible for the Court to do Plaintiff's work for it, even if the Court were so inclined. See Docs. 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5. This type of inattention to detail is problematic when only one defendant is involved in a case; it is catastrophic when there are more than one hundred defendants. This is precisely the reason the Court does not consider it efficient to join massive numbers of defendants in one case, and further why the Court does believe that each individual defendant's rights may be prejudiced by such joinder. Finally, Plaintiff has still not completed the Court's Schedule A template, which it was instructed to complete by 9/5/2025. Plaintiff is given until 9/15/2025 to fix these problems. Plaintiff may either file a supplemental joinder memo or an amended complaint. If the amended complaint alleges more than one defendant, it must also be accompanied by a supplemental joinder memo. Mailed notice. (jcc,) 翻译 |
| 12 |
09/05/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. 翻译 |
| 11 |
09/04/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. 翻译 |
| 10 |
09/04/2025
|
AMENDED complaint by Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. against The Corporations, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 翻译 |
| 9 |
08/22/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 2 is granted in part. Plaintiff may seal the Schedule A to the complaint, and Exhibit 2 to the Complaint. Plaintiff is not entitled to seal Exhibit 1, its design patent, as patents are public records. Nor is Plaintiff allowed to redact its own identity from the complaint. Plaintiff is directed to re-file a public version of the complaint that contains both its identity and the design patent at issue. The unredacted copy of the complaint 3 may remain under seal. Plaintiff's motion for a TRO 5 is denied, for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff has not followed the proper format for listing the Schedule A defendants. See Doc. 4-1. Each Defendant must have its own unique number. Plaintiff has created unnecessary confusion by listing multiple Defendants with the same number. Second, the exhibits Plaintiff submitted in support of the TRO contain 811 pages of screenshots that are illegible. See Doc. 4-3. Each screenshot is blurry, does not clearly notate which Defendant it applies to, and fails to include the date that each screenshot was captured, which is necessary to demonstrate ongoing harm. Third, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) of joining 344 Defendants to this action. See, e.g, Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Plaintiff should reference this Court's opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), where the Court expressed its views on joinder. By 9/5/2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder on a defendant-by-defendant basis, addressing the above-cited cases. In the alternative, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 9/5/2025 with a smaller subset of Defendants along with a memorandum explaining why each Defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Finally, because it appears that this is a "Schedule A" case, Plaintiff is directed to the Court's standing order on its website directing the filing of the Court's Schedule A Template within 14 days. Mailed notice. (jcc,) 翻译 |
| 8 |
08/20/2025
|
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. 翻译 |
| 7 |
08/20/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable April M. Perry. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). 翻译 |
| 6 |
08/20/2025
|
MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (bi,) 翻译 |
| 5 |
08/19/2025
|
SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. 翻译 |
| 4 |
08/19/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. Complaint 翻译 |
| 3 |
08/19/2025
|
SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. 翻译 |
| 2 |
08/19/2025
|
SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd. 翻译 |
| 1 |
08/19/2025
|
COMPLAINT filed by Dongguan Guardian Technology Co., Ltd.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23911022. 翻译 |