IP Verse

Cao Group, Inc. V. Gd-Whitening - 1:24-cv-05129

Explore the details of the Cao Group, Inc. V. Gd-Whitening case under case number 1:24-cv-05129 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:24-cv-05129
Filing Date
Jun 20, 2024
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
GD-Whitening -
CAO Group, Inc. -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Jun 14, 2024Minute entry from 24cv2411 before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Defendant zhuhai jiashu dianzishangwu youxiangongsi d/b/a GD-Whitening moves to dismiss on two grounds. R. 56 . First, GD-Whitening argues that Count IV of the Amended Complaint seeking unjust enrichment should be dismissed because it is preempted by federal patent law. Id. at 4. Plaintiff concedes this point. R. 81 at 1. GD-Whitening's motion to dismiss is thus granted as to Count IV. Second, GD-Whitening argues improper joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299. R. 56 at 6. Consistent with this Court's ruling in Tang, the Court finds that joinder is improper as to GD-Whitening. See Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 68332, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (citations omitted) (finding that the appearing defendants were improperly joined under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because "[the] case [did] not involve a swarm of counterfeiters passing off their products as those of a single plaintiff... [but rather,] it involve[d] multiple sellers of the exact same type of product allegedly infringing on one seller's... patent."). Though in Tang, the Court dismissed the appearing defendants, the Court notes that severance is a proper remedy for misjoinder under Rule 21. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see also R. 93 at 5 (GD-Whitening's reply brief). Thus, GD-Whitening's motion to dismiss is denied as to Counts I, II, and III, and Plaintiff's claims against GD-Whitening are severed. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case as to GD-Whitening, related to this case and assigned to Judge Durkin. In this original action, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within seven days that removes GD-Whitening as a defendant and that drops Count IV as to all remaining defendants. In the severed case against GD-Whitening, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within seven days that names GD-Whitening as the sole defendant and that drops Count IV. Within fourteen days, Plaintiff and GD-Whitening shall submit a joint status report setting forth proposed dates for discovery. Mailed notice. (aee, ) (Entered: 06/20/2024)PACER Document
Jun 21, 2024Second AMENDED complaint by CAO Group, Inc. against GD-Whitening (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Bishop, Edward) (Entered: 06/21/2024)PACER Document