IP Verse

New Bkfarmhouse Inc. V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On "Schedule A" - 1:24-cv-02495

Explore the details of the New Bkfarmhouse Inc. V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On "Schedule A" case under case number 1:24-cv-02495 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-02495
Filing Date
Mar 27, 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
TANGKULA -
FACEKET -
MOWPEX -
New BKFarmhouse Inc. -
MOOLIVE -
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on "Schedule A" -
MAOVUIO -
BONBOIS -
WHATWEARS65522 -
JENSER -
EDYO LIVING -
NEBZHASK -
PAKASEPT -

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 25, 2024MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for preliminary injunction (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Brief in Support, # 2 Declaration Pete Wolfgram, # 3 Declaration Wei Shen)(Zhang, Xiyan) (Entered: 04/25/2024)Attachment
Apr 25, 2024MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for preliminary injunction (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Brief in Support, # 2 Declaration Pete Wolfgram, # 3 Declaration Wei Shen)(Zhang, Xiyan) (Entered: 04/25/2024)Attachment
Apr 25, 2024MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for preliminary injunction (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Brief in Support, # 2 Declaration Pete Wolfgram, # 3 Declaration Wei Shen)(Zhang, Xiyan) (Entered: 04/25/2024)Attachment
May 15, 2024MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for default judgment as to Defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Brief in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration by Pete Wolfgram)(Zhang, Xiyan) (Entered: 05/15/2024)PACER Document
May 15, 2024MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for extension of time to file answer Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Negotiate Settlement on Behalf of Defendant Edyo Living (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 05/15/2024)PACER Document
May 15, 2024MOTION by Defendant MAOVUIO to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Decl. of Weiqiang Zhang)(Cheng, He) (Entered: 05/15/2024)PACER Document
May 16, 2024MOTION by Plaintiff New BKFarmhouse Inc. for extension of time to file answer on behalf of Defendants Faceket, Mowpex, and Nebzhask (Defendants 9, 11, and 4, respectively) (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 05/16/2024)PACER Document
May 15, 2024ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant MAOVUIO by He Cheng (Cheng, He) (Entered: 05/15/2024)PACER Document
May 16, 2024ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants FACEKET, MOWPEX, NEBZHASK by He Cheng (Cheng, He) (Entered: 05/16/2024)PACER Document
May 16, 2024NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by New BKFarmhouse Inc. and Maovuio (Defendant No. 5) (joint stipulation) (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 05/16/2024)PACER Document
May 24, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This is a "Schedule A" case, which is a type of lawsuit typically filed against a group of sellers whose assumed names are listed on an attachment to the complaint, usually called "Schedule A." Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated, 2021 WL 308882, at *1 (N.D. Ill. January 30, 2021). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants. R. 18, Mot. Default; R. [18-1], Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion 18 without prejudice for the following reasons. Plaintiff requests that the Court award the entire amount of the restrained balances in each Defaulting Defendant's Amazon account, totaling $102,007. Memo. Default at 11-12. Plaintiff also provided a declaration in support of its default motion stating that, "[b]y failing to respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions, each Defaulting Defendant admitted... that the restrained Amazon account balances are less than profits." R. 18-2, Wolfgram Decl. para. 8. However, the declaration also states, "Defaulting Defendants further admitted to... having a combined revenue of at least $68,223 USD, having combined profits of at least $17,055 USD, and having a combined restrained Amazon financial account balance of $102,007." Id. para. 9. The Court finds there to be inconsistencies between the admission that "the restrained Amazon account balances are less than profits" and the actual amounts of restrained balances and profits indicated in the declaration; specifically, the $84,953 gap between the $17,055 in profits and the $102,007 restrained. True, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), a defendant's failure to respond to a request for admit results in a matter being deemed admitted, so technically, if Defaulting Defendants failed to respond to a request to admit that "their restrained Amazon account balance [is] less than its profits," that is deemed admitted. Still, a plaintiff is not entitled to a windfall unsupported by the evidence when a defendant defaults. Here, Plaintiff provides information about the amount of Defaulting Defendant's profits, which obviously is a more accurate measure of the damages allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Although Plaintiff does not specifically request damages in the amount of Defaulting Defendants' revenue, Plaintiff cites several cases in which a court has entered a profit award for the entire revenue amount where the infringer has failed to produce evidence as to the costs to be subtracted from revenue to calculate the profits. Memo. Default at 9-10 (collecting cases). This is certainly true, but the Court is still faced with the numbers provided by Plaintiff: that is, that Defaulting Defendants' profits total at least $17,055 and their revenue totals at least $68,223. Plaintiff does not explain where these amounts came from, or why it should be entitled to the $51,168 difference between profits and revenue, given Plaintiff was able to calculate the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits (which was not possible in the cited cases). In the alternative to its request for the entire restrained balances, Plaintiff requests "$204,669, treble the amount of the combined profits under 35 USC 284." Memo. at 11. True, enhanced damages up to three times the amount are allowed under Section 284, but the Court is not convinced such enhanced damages are necessarily appropriate here. Based on the Court's review of the cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, none awarded treble damages. Id. at 11-12 (collecting cases, all of which awarded $100,000 per defaulting defendant; in each of the cited cases, the court awarded $100,000 per defaulting defendant based on the unanswered Requests for Admission that the defaulting defendant's "profits from the sale of the Infringing Products totals more than $100,000." See, e.g., Oakley, Inc. v. ADVENTURER, et al, No. 20-cv-00277, Dkts. 56 at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3)), 56-3 at 2 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2020)). In a renewed default motion, Plaintiff must either request an award consisting of the amount of profits per Defaulting Defendant or explain, with supporting authority, why Plaintiff is entitled to either the amount restrained or the Defaulting Defendants' revenue when Plaintiff has evidence regarding Defaulting Defendants' profits. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits, any renewed motion must further support the basis for the request for enhanced damages and cite other patent "Schedule A" cases from this District, in which the court has awarded enhanced damages. Notices Mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/24/2024)PACER Document
May 24, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed the stipulation to dismiss between Plaintiff and Defendant MAOVUIO 23 . Pursuant to the stipulation and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Defendant MAOVUIO is dismissed from this case without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Defendant MAOVUIO's motion to dismiss 21 is terminated as moot. Notices Mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/24/2024)PACER Document
May 24, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motions, the Court grants: (1) the unopposed first motion of extension of time for defendant Edyo Living to respond to answer or otherwise plead 19 and (2) the parties' joint motion for Defendants Faceket, Mowpex, and Nebzhask to answer or otherwise plead 24 . Defendant Edyo Living's responsive pleading is now due on or before 6/14/2024, and Defendants Faceket, Mowpex, and Nebzhask responsive pleading is due on or before 6/21/2024. Notices Mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/24/2024)PACER Document
May 26, 2024NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by New BKFarmhouse Inc. as to Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (Pakasept, Whatwears-65522, and Tangkula, respectively) (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 05/26/2024)PACER Document
Jun 3, 2024ORDER Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 6/3/2024: Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 06/03/2024)PACER Document
Jun 1, 2024NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by New BKFarmhouse Inc. as to Defendant Nos. 4,8, 9, and 11 (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 06/01/2024)PACER Document
Jun 2, 2024NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by New BKFarmhouse Inc. as to Defendant Nos. 7 and 10, and Request to Terminate the Case and Release Cash Bond (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 06/02/2024)PACER Document
Jun 3, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal 30, which also notifies the Court that there are no remaining Defendants or pending issues in the case, and thus requests return of the bond. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to return the bond 30 . The ten thousand dollar ($10,000.00) cash bond posted by Plaintiff, including any interest minus the registry fee, is hereby released to Pete Scott Wolfgram of Stratum Law Llc. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the cash bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Pete Scott Wolfgram of Stratum Law Llc, 2424 E. York St., Philadelphia, PA 19125. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 06/03/2024)PACER Document