IP Verse

Minimore Living Inc V. Huizhou Jiushengchen Furniture Co., Ltd - 1:24-cv-03323

Explore the details of the Minimore Living Inc V. Huizhou Jiushengchen Furniture Co., Ltd case under case number 1:24-cv-03323 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-03323
Filing Date
Apr 25, 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
Minimore Living Inc -
Huizhou Jiushengchen Furniture Co., Ltd -
Taining Zhitaiou Technology Co., Ltd -

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

May 1, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable John Robert Blakey. The litigants are ordered to review and fully comply with all of this Court's standing orders, which are available on Judge Blakey's information page on the Court's official website: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. In addition, the parties must file a status report no later than 6/10/2024, using the model template set forth in this Court's standing order regarding Initial (or Reassignment) Status Conferences. Failure by any party to file the status report by the requisite deadline (either jointly or, if necessary, individually with an explanation as to why a joint report could not be filed) may result in a summary dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, or an entry of default against any served defendant(s) failing to comply with this order. During the litigation, the attorneys must also appear at all hearing dates set by the Court or noticed by the parties. If an attorney has a conflict with a set court date, the attorney must notify Judge Blakey's Courtroom Deputy, Gloria Lewis, at [email protected]. If appropriate, the Court will then reset the matter. Advising opposing counsel of a scheduling conflict is not a substitute for communicating directly with the Court. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 05/01/2024)PACER Document
May 15, 2024ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Minimore Living Inc by Tao Liu (Liu, Tao) (Entered: 05/15/2024)PACER Document
May 20, 2024NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Minimore Living Inc (Wang, Wei) (Entered: 05/20/2024)PACER Document
May 20, 2024MEMORANDUM by Minimore Living Inc in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 7 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wei Wang, # 2 Exhibit 1 Email from Wayfair, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Wang, Wei) (Entered: 05/20/2024)PACER Document
May 20, 2024NOTICE of Motion by Wei Wang for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 7 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/29/2024 at 11:00 AM. (Wang, Wei) (Entered: 05/20/2024)PACER Document
May 22, 2024SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Huizhou Jiushengchen Furniture Co., Ltd, Taining Zhitaiou Technology Co., Ltd. (rc, )PACER Document
May 22, 2024SUMMONS Returned Executed by Minimore Living Inc as to Huizhou Jiushengchen Furniture Co., Ltd on 5/22/2024, answer due 6/12/2024; Taining Zhitaiou Technology Co., Ltd on 5/22/2024, answer due 6/12/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wei Wang)(Wang, Wei) (Entered: 05/22/2024)PACER Document
Jun 11, 2024STATUS Report by Minimore Living Inc (Wang, Wei) (Entered: 06/11/2024)PACER Document
Jun 14, 2024MEMORANDUM by Minimore Living Inc in support of motion for entry of default,, motion for default judgment, 13 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wei Wang, # 2 Exhibit 1 Certificate of Defendant's Patent, # 3 Exhibit 2 Mario Marenco and his design, # 4 Exhibit 3 Marenco Sofa)(Wang, Wei) (Entered: 06/14/2024)PACER Document
Jun 14, 2024NOTICE of Motion by Wei Wang for presentment of motion for entry of default,, motion for default judgment, 13 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 6/26/2024 at 11:00 AM. (Wang, Wei) (Entered: 06/14/2024)PACER Document
Jul 8, 2024MEMORANDUM order on motion for entry of default,,,,,,,,,, order on motion for default judgment,,,,,,,,,, terminate deadlines,,,,,,,,, 16 by Minimore Living Inc Supplemental Memorandum in support of Plaintiff's Motion for entry of default and default judgment regarding the personal jurisdiction and venue (Wang, Wei) (Entered: 07/08/2024)PACER Document
Jul 15, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: This Court previously ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief concerning personal jurisdiction over Defendants. And Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief, as ordered, suggesting that this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, both Chinese limited liability companies, under Rule 4(k)(2). The provision, Plaintiff argues, was "added 'to cover persons who do not reside in the United States, and have ample contacts with the nation as a whole, but whose contacts are so scattered among states that none of them would have jurisdiction.'" 17 at 2 (quoting ISI Int'l, Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 551 (7th Cir. 2001)). But Plaintiff's complaint does not allege facts to suggest that Defendants fit this bill. Instead, the complaint alleges that Defendants procured a patent and that they then filed a complaint with Wayfair, claiming Plaintiff infringed that patent. Neither of those contacts has anything to do with this District; nor does Plaintiff appear to have any connection to this district. Rule 4(k)(2) provides that "for a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws." Because exercising jurisdiction is not consistent with the United States Constitution and laws, service of summons cannot create personal jurisdiction. Nor does Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) support the exercise of personal jurisdiction here. In that case, the plaintiff sued a Chinese defendant for infringing the plaintiff's patent and the record showed that the defendant had maintained a relationship with a United States-based distributor who could and did ship the defendant's product to the forum state. Plaintiff does not allege that Wayfair has purposefully shipped Defendants' products to Illinois. Plaintiff cites Glacio Inc. v. Dongguan Sutuo Industrial Co. Ltd., to support its personal jurisdiction arguments. But, significantly, in that case, the defendant had demonstrated contacts with Amazon, a company with its principal place of business in the forum state, and the court still said this was not enough, Glacio Inc. v. Dongguan Sutuo Indus. Co., No. 2:22-CV-00029-MKD, 2023 WL 6326587, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2023); here, Plaintiff has not alleged any contacts with the forum state (Wayfair has its principal place of business in Massachusetts, not Illinois). Moreover, although the court in Glacio acknowledged that the defendant in that case appeared to have minimum contacts with the United States based upon its efforts to obtain and enforce its patent, the court still held that it required further argument concerning the basis for personal jurisdiction and denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Id., 2023 WL 6326587, at *6. As the court in Glacio noted, "when entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties to determine whether it has the power to enter the judgment in the first place." Glacio, 2023 WL 6326587, at *2 (citing In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)). Personal jurisdiction remains "a threshold matter," and this Court remains obliged to ensure that it has jurisdiction to decide the asserted claim. Delta Faucet Co. v. Watkins, No. 123CV00200JMSCSW, 2023 WL 8527092, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2023). See also Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 580 U.S. 82, 95 (2017) ("A court must have the power to decide the claim before it (subject-matter jurisdiction) and power over the parties before it (personal jurisdiction) before it can resolve a case."). Indeed, were this Court to enter default judgment against a defendant over whom it lacks jurisdiction, that judgment would be void. E.g., Swaim v. Moltan Co., 73 F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff, as the party invoking jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction exists. Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wisc., Inc., 783 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir.2015). And on the current record, it has failed to do so. Additionally, because venue remains tied to personal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), the Court lacks a basis to find venue proper here as well. If Plaintiff wishes to amend its complaint to allege facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants (and, relatedly, venue), it may file a second amended complaint by 8/2/24; the Court dismisses the current complaint 6 without prejudice and denies the motion for default judgment 13 . Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 07/15/2024)PACER Document
Aug 2, 2024NOTICE of Motion by Wei Wang for presentment of motion for extension of time to amend 19 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 8/7/2024 at 11:00 AM. (Wang, Wei) (Entered: 08/02/2024)PACER Document