IP Verse

Doe V. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liabilites, Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto, The - 1:23-cv-08185

Explore the details of the Doe V. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liabilites, Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto, The case under case number 1:23-cv-08185 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
1:23-cv-08185
Filing Date
Sep 8, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved

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

NameRepresented By
John Doe -
Shenzhen Saikexing Technology Co., Ltd. -
Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liabilites, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, The -

Patents Involved

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

Sep 8, 2023Memorandum in Support of Motion for Electronic Service of Process by John Doe (Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 09/08/2023)PACER Document
Sep 8, 2023ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Shengmao Mu (Mu, Shengmao) (Entered: 09/08/2023)PACER Document
Sep 11, 2023CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (axk, )PACER Document
Sep 11, 2023CLERK'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. (axk, )PACER Document
Sep 13, 2023SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Amended Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order (Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 09/13/2023)PACER Document
Sep 13, 2023SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Memorandum in Support of Amended Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order (Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 09/13/2023)PACER Document
Sep 13, 2023SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Declaration in Support of Amended Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2A, # 3 Exhibit 2B, # 4 Exhibit 2C, # 5 Exhibit 2D, # 6 Exhibit 2E, # 7 Exhibit 2F, # 8 Exhibit 2G, # 9 Exhibit 2H)(Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 09/13/2023)PACER Document
Sep 26, 2023MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. (jn, ) (Entered: 09/26/2023)PACER Document
Nov 20, 2023MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 5 and motion for electronic service of process 18 are granted. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 7 ) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, the Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, 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 Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an equitable accounting. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff's patented works to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated 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 infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them 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 Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action, but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. The disabling of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 11/20/2023)PACER Document
Nov 20, 2023SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 11/20/2023 (td, ) (Entered: 11/21/2023)PACER Document
Nov 29, 2023MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Saikexing Technology Co., Ltd. for extension of time Motion to Extend Sealed Temporary Restraining Order (Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 11/29/2023)PACER Document
Dec 5, 2023MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff has filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" 35 . Because the Notice was filed before the opposing parties served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the case is dismissed with prejudice consistent with the terms of the Notice and by operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. The temporary restraining order 32 is dissolved. Plaintiff's motion 34 to extend the temporary restraining order is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (kl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2023)PACER Document
Nov 29, 2023SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000.00 posted by Shenzhen Saikexing Technology Co., Ltd. (Document not imaged) (td, ) (Entered: 11/29/2023)PACER Document
Nov 29, 2023NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Shenzhen Saikexing Technology Co., Ltd. (Mu, Shengmao) (Entered: 11/29/2023)PACER Document
Dec 6, 2023MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. (rc, ) (Entered: 12/06/2023)PACER Document
Sep 8, 2023COMPLAINT filed by John Doe; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-21029748. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3)(Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 09/08/2023)Attachment
Sep 8, 2023COMPLAINT filed by John Doe; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-21029748. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3)(Chiacchio, Theodore) (Entered: 09/08/2023)Attachment
Sep 11, 2023CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (axk, )PACER Document
Sep 11, 2023CLERK'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. (axk, )PACER Document
Oct 23, 2023NEW PARTIES: Shenzhen Saikexing Technology Co., Ltd. added to case caption. (Chiacchio, Theodore)PACER Document