Stay informed with the latest litigation news. Explore now

IP Verse

Xiangxin Liu V. The Partnerships And Unicorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A - 1:24-cv-00107

Explore the details of the Xiangxin Liu V. The Partnerships And Unicorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A case under case number 1:24-cv-00107 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-00107
Filing Date
Jan 4, 2024
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
Xiangxin Liu -
The Partnerships And Unicorporated Associations Identified On 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

Jan 4, 2024SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Xiangxin Liu Schedule A and Exhibits to Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Schedule A List of Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations, # 2 Exhibit 1 Accused Instrumentalities, # 3 Exhibit 2 Accused Instrumentalities, # 4 Exhibit 3 Accused Instrumentalities, # 5 Exhibit 4 Accused Instrumentalities, # 6 Exhibit 5 Accused Instrumentalities, # 7 Exhibit 6 Accused Instrumentalities, # 8 Exhibit 7 Accused Instrumentalities, # 9 Exhibit 8 Accused Instrumentalities, # 10 Exhibit 9 Accused Instrumentalities, # 11 Exhibit 10 Accused Instrumentalities, # 12 Exhibit 11 Accused Instrumentalities, # 13 Exhibit 12 Accused Instrumentalities, # 14 Exhibit 13 Accused Instrumentalities, # 15 Exhibit 14 Accused Instrumentalities, # 16 Exhibit 15 Accused Instrumentalities, # 17 Exhibit 16 Patent-in-Suit, # 18 Exhibit 17 Claim Chart)(Kalberg, Steven) (Entered: 01/04/2024)PACER Document
Jan 4, 2024CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). (evw, )PACER Document
Jan 4, 2024CLERK'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. (evw, )PACER Document
May 10, 2024SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 5/10/2024. (exr, ) (Entered: 05/10/2024)PACER Document
May 10, 2024MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal 6 8 are granted, and Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and other relief 7 is granted in part. 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, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents appearing at docket entries 5 and 7 . The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also 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 the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that he may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. 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 that infringe upon Plaintiff's patented design 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. 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. (exr, ) (Entered: 05/10/2024)PACER Document