IP Verse

Cao Group, Inc. V. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associates Identified On Schedule A - 1:25-cv-04054

Explore the details of the Cao Group, Inc. V. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associates Identified On Schedule A case under case number 1:25-cv-04054 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
1:25-cv-04054
Filing Date
Apr 14, 2025
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
CAO Group, Inc. -
The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A -

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

Apr 14, 2025COMPLAINT (Redacted) filed by CAO Group, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23347797. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule A (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 2 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit 3 (Redacted))(Lee, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/14/2025)Attachment
Apr 14, 2025COMPLAINT (Redacted) filed by CAO Group, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23347797. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule A (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 2 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit 3 (Redacted))(Lee, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/14/2025)Attachment
Apr 19, 2025MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for Alternative Service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) (Lee, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/19/2025)PACER Document
Apr 19, 2025MOTION by Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery (Lee, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/19/2025)PACER Document
Apr 21, 2025MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, 4, is denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. Id. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendant's profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [], is therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed documents, 5, 6, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its complaint and any exhibits publicly on the docket by 4/28/2025. (rao, ) (Entered: 04/21/2025)PACER Document
Apr 22, 2025MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, 12, is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 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. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 15 . (rao, ) (Entered: 04/22/2025)PACER Document
Apr 22, 2025MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery, 10, is denied for the reasons stated in the court's prior minute entry. 14 . (rao, ) (Entered: 04/22/2025)PACER Document
Apr 15, 2025CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). (qrtr, )PACER Document
Apr 15, 2025CLERK'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. (qrtr, )PACER Document
Apr 19, 2025MEMORANDUM by CAO Group, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 10 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas S. Lee, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Lee, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/19/2025)PACER Document
Apr 21, 2025MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 5/5/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases... using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). (rao, ) (Entered: 04/21/2025)PACER Document