Stay informed with the latest litigation news. Explore now

IP Verse

Pg Ltd. V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified In Schedule A - 1:25-cv-03716

Explore the details of the Pg Ltd. V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified In Schedule A case under case number 1:25-cv-03716 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-03716
Filing Date
Apr 7, 2025
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
OPEN
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved

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

NameRepresented By
PG Ltd. -
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A -

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

Apr 7, 2025SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff PG Ltd., Unredacted Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Schedule A, # 2 Ex.1)(Judge, James) (Entered: 04/07/2025)PACER Document
Apr 7, 2025CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). (txd, )PACER Document
Apr 7, 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. (txd, )PACER Document
Apr 7, 2025ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff PG Ltd., by Ying Chen (Chen, Ying) (Entered: 04/07/2025)PACER Document
Apr 7, 2025MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold for all further proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 294(b). Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Request for reassignment) (ags) (Entered: 04/08/2025)PACER Document
Apr 8, 2025MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(rc, ) (Entered: 04/08/2025)PACER Document
Apr 10, 2025MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/24/2025, 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, trademark, or patent 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, Ltda. 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: 04/10/2025)PACER Document