IP Verse

Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A - 1:23-cv-01560

Explore the details of the Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A case under case number 1:23-cv-01560 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-01560
Filing Date
Mar 13, 2023
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
Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. -
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations 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

Oct 4, 2023MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. for leave to file Under Seal its Memorandum of Law Regarding Proper Joinder (Ni, Hao) (Entered: 10/04/2023)PACER Document
Nov 22, 2023MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 2 ) is hereby denied. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in the so-called Schedule A to the complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. There is a strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. "Secrecy in judicial proceedings... is disfavored." Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that "a strong presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders"); Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that "secrecy in judicial proceedings is generally disfavored"). "Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Even disputes about claims of national security are litigated in the open."). A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden. Plaintiff does not come close to doing so here. Plaintiff's explanation for the request for secrecy is rather terse. "Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." See Mtn. to Seal (Dckt. No. 2 ) That's the same cut-and-paste boilerplate offered in countless Schedule A cases, often word for word. Plaintiff gives no concrete reason to think that Defendants would destroy documents in this particular case. As a practical matter, Defendants typically don't produce documents in Schedule A cases anyway, because almost all of them fail to participate in the suit and eventually get tagged with a default judgment. The simple reality is that defendants in Schedule A cases tend to be foreign sellers who do not produce documents at all, so sealing a case to protect documents is likely to be a moot point. Also, the possibility of document destruction is not much of a basis for sealing documents in the short term, because Plaintiff apparently plans to move to unseal the documents after serving the TRO. The possibility of transferring assets offshore isn't much of a reason to proceed in secret in a Schedule A case, either. Filing an ex parte motion for a TRO, under seal, does make sense in certain types of cases. For example, the SEC often seeks a TRO to lock down assets that do not rightfully belong to the defendants (e.g., by suing a fraudster who holds investors' money). In those cases, the SEC often files a motion for a TRO under seal, and rightly so. Making the request under seal makes sense in those cases, because the alleged fraudster could dissipate the investors' assets if the fraudster learns about the lawsuit. Locking down the assets, without giving the fraudster a heads-up, helps to protect investors and preserve the possibility of obtaining meaningful equitable relief at the end of the case. A motion to seal often makes sense when the plaintiff seeks an asset freeze to secure the potential recovery of future equitable relief. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to preserve the possibility of obtaining equitable relief at the end of the case. But in Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs' bar typically seeks remedies at law, such as statutory damages, not equitable monetary relief. The request for a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, affects the calculus when it comes to an asset freeze. 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. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "[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." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if a plaintiff requested and received equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens. Schedule A plaintiffs typically don't request and receive equitable relief. Instead, Schedule A plaintiffs rush into court, request and receive an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. Truth be told, the Schedule A plaintiffs' bar asks district courts in this district to lock down assets through an asset freeze on day one of a case, and do so under seal. And then, at the end of the case, Schedule A plaintiffs receive a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, which means that there was no justification for an asset freeze in the first place. Putting it all together, this Court might entertain a request to file under seal if Plaintiff were seeking an asset freeze that this Court could grant, meaning an asset freeze for the limited purpose of allowing equitable relief down the road. But in the case at hand, Plaintiff has not made a showing that it will seek equitable monetary relief at the end of the case, so there is no basis for an asset freeze now. And if there is no basis for an asset freeze now, then there is no reason to proceed under seal now. If you can't freeze it, you can't seal it. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 11/22/2023)PACER Document
Oct 4, 2023NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. as to Defendants ADVASUN, AOCAAUP, YingleUS, ShengMei-US, SATX Boutique, RIMARUP, USUIE, Topcupro, VINATOTEK, YanSang Direct, Diaky, SINEONIER, and Zhangzhou Meizi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd (Ni, Hao) (Entered: 10/04/2023)PACER Document
Oct 4, 2023SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. Memorandum of Law Regarding Proper Joinder (Ni, Hao) (Entered: 10/04/2023)PACER Document
Oct 4, 2023MEMORANDUM text entry 10 by Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. re Memorandum of Law Regarding Proper Joinder (Ni, Hao) (Entered: 10/04/2023)PACER Document