2024-cv-02414 AI分析
10/29/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Pursuant to the satisfaction of judgment regarding Defendant No. 15 Maeytau [38], Plaintiff acknowledges payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to release this judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to Maeytau. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment. The motion to set aside default [34] is terminated as moot. Mailed notice.
07/10/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court grants the Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply Briefs [36]. Per agreement of the parties, the Court sets the following briefing schedule to Defendant Maeytau's Motion to Vacate Default Judgment [34]. Plaintiff's response is due on or before 08/07/2024; Defendant Maeytau's reply is due on or before 08/14/2024. Mailed notice.
07/09/2024
MOTION by Defendant Maeytau for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to set aside default, [34] AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEFS
06/27/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's response to Defendant No. 15, Dongtai Tailai Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Maeytau's (Maeytau) motion to vacate default judgment 34 due by 7/10/2024; Defendant Maeytau's reply due by 7/17/2024. Mailed notice.
06/26/2024
MOTION by Defendant Maeytau to set aside default
附件：
1:Declaration of XIA
2:Declaration of CHAI
3:Exhibit A
4:Exhibit B
5:Exhibit C
6:Exhibit D
7:Exhibit E
8:Exhibit F
9:Exhibit G
10:Exhibit H
11:Exhibit I
12:Exhibit J
13:Exhibit K
14:(Exhibit L)
06/12/2024
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Maeytau by Hua Chen
05/24/2024
FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 5/24/2024. Notices Mailed.
05/24/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's Second Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment against the Defendants Azaeahom-US, DuckSky-US, meizhu_ys, qiliu_ys, Simflag-US, sutuo-US, yisheng-US, yucheng_ys, zhengxian_ys, ZWanPing, and Maeytau 27 is granted. Enter Final Judgment Order. The ten thousand dollar ($10,000.00) cash bond posted by Stratum Law LLC, including any interest minus the registry fee, is hereby released to Xiyan Zhang 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 Xiyan Zhang, Stratum Law LLC., 2424 E York St. Ste. 223, Philadelphia, PA 19125. Civil case terminated. Notices Mailed.
05/20/2024
NOTICE by Lovitedo, LLC re MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC for default judgment as to Defendant Azaeahom-US, DuckSky-US, meizhu_ys, qiliu_ys, Simflag-US, sutuo-US, yisheng-US, yucheng_ys, zhengxian_ys, and ZWanPing 27 Notice of Errata in Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default Judgment (ECF 27) to include Defendant No. 15, Maeytau, as a Defaulting Defendant
05/20/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC for default judgment as to Defendant Azaeahom-US, DuckSky-US, meizhu_ys, qiliu_ys, Simflag-US, sutuo-US, yisheng-US, yucheng_ys, zhengxian_ys, and ZWanPing
附件：
1:Supplement Brief in Support
2:(Declaration of Pete Wolfgram)
05/16/2024
MINUTE 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 remaining Defendants. R. [20], Mot. Default; R. [20-1], Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [20] 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 $687,857. Memo. Default at 11. 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. 20-2, Wolfgram Decl. para. 8. However, the declaration also states, "Defaulting Defendants further admitted to. having a combined revenue of at least $560,057 USD, having combined profits of at least $140,014 USD, and having a combined restrained Amazon financial account balance of $687,857." 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 $547,843 gap between the $140,014 in profits and the $687,857 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. In Oakley, Inc. v. The Partnerships, et al., No.20-cv-02970 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2020) (unpublished) (Docket No. 61)), cited by Plaintiff, the court awarded restrained funds and acknowledged the possibility that such "restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales," but concluded nonetheless that "plaintiff's efforts provide the best available measure of profits." Here, however, 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 8-9 (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 $140,014 and their revenue totals at least $560,057. Plaintiff does not explain where these amounts came from, or why it should be entitled to the $420,043 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 "$420,042, 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. (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. Mailed notice.
05/15/2024
STATUS Report Pursuant to the Court's May 15, 2024 Minute Order (ECF 23) by Lovitedo, LLC
05/15/2024
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Lovitedo, LLC as to Defendant Liansy (Defendant No. 7)
05/15/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 20. The proposed order attached to Plaintiff's motion states that Plaintiff has moved for entry of default and default judgment "against the remaining defendants" and is styled as a final judgment order [20-3]. Pursuant to the notices of dismissal 16, 19, 21 filed by Plaintiff, the Court directs the Clerk to terminate the following Defendants as parties: Amazingforless, D&D Products, LLC, Nalone, 3 qmart-15, BestCuteShop, Freedom_Thai, Kitket_68, Vh-mall, HIGHMIX, DYNVUE, LUBBYGIM, H Jump, and Sanga Tech. (The Court notes that Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal 16 includes defendant numbers that do not correspond with the defendant numbers on Schedule A [6-4]; going forward, any reference to Defendant numbers in any of Plaintiff's filings must correspond to the numbers in Schedule A.) Based on the Court's review of the docket, there are three Defendants unaccounted for in the notices of dismissal 16, 19, 21 and the motion for default 20 : HiTODirect, Liansy, and Loeniy. By 5/22/2024, the Court directs Plaintiff to file either a status report regarding the status of the action against those three defendants, or the appropriate dismissal paperwork. The Court enters and continues the motion for default 20. Mailed notice.
05/15/2024
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Lovitedo, LLC as to Defendants Nos. 6 and 18
05/13/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC for default judgment as to Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19
05/06/2024
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to Certain Defendants
05/01/2024
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 5/1/2024. Mailed notice.
05/01/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On the grounds set forth in the motion, Plaintiff's motion for an entry of a preliminary injunction 15 is granted as to all Defendants listed in the accompanying Order, which excludes Defendant Highmix, which has entered an appearance 14. Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. The following documents are to be unsealed: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal and the related exhibits, which are exhibits to the Complaint 6 ; the motion for a temporary restraining order and exhibits thereto 7 ; and the Temporary Restraining Order 11. Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to add ALL Defendant names listed in the Schedule A to the docket within three business days. Defendant Highmix is directed to file a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction 15 on or before 5/15/2024; Plaintiff may file a reply by 5/22/2024. Mailed notice.
04/29/2024
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Lovitedo, LLC as to Certain Defendants
04/29/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC for preliminary injunction
附件：
1:Supplement Brief in Support
2:Declaration Pete Wolfgram
3:(Declaration Joe Li)
04/24/2024
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Highmix by Steven G Kalberg
04/22/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court hereby grants Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order 12. The Temporary Restraining Order 11 shall now expire on 5/7/2024 at 6:00 p.m. Mailed notice.
04/19/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC for extension of time
附件：
1:Declaration of Pete Wolfgram
2:(Supplement Brief in Support)
04/05/2024
TEMPORARY Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 4/5/2024. Mailed notice. Modified on 5/2/2024.
04/05/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motions, the Court grants Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 7. Provided that Plaintiff provides the security described in paragraph 8 of the temporary restraining order, the temporary restraining order shall become effective on 4/9/2024 at 6:00 p.m. and shall expire in fourteen (14) days from the effective date. The Court finds that joinder of the "Schedule A" Defendants is proper at this preliminary stage. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). The Court notes that no Defendants are prejudiced by permitting joinder at this juncture. See Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511, 517 (N.D. Ill. 2020). To the extent any defendant appears and objects to joinder, the Court will revisit the issue and is free to sever certain defendants from the case under Rule 21 at that time. Mailed notice.
04/03/2024
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motions, the Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal 6, 8. The following documents may remain under seal: (1) Schedule A to the Complaint; (2) Exhibit 1 to the Complaint, containing Defendants' product listings; (3) Exhibit 2 to the Complaint, containing Plaintiff's Patent; and (3) Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. Mailed notice
04/01/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC to seal Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
04/01/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Modified on 5/2/2024.
附件：
1:Supplement Brief in Support
2:(Declaration of Joe Li)
03/29/2024
MOTION by Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC Modified on 5/2/2024.
附件：
1:Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
2:Exhibit 1
3:Exhibit 2
4:(Exhibit Schedule A)
03/27/2024
CIVIL Cover Sheet
03/26/2024
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC by Pete Scott Wolfgram
03/26/2024
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Lovitedo, LLC by Xiyan Zhang
03/26/2024
MAILED Patent Request Letter to Plaintiff's counsel Xiyan Zhang.
03/25/2024
CLERK'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.
03/25/2024
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1).
03/25/2024
COMPLAINT filed by LOVITEDO, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21781892.
附件：
1:Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet
2:Exhibit 1
3:Exhibit 2
4:(Exhibit Schedule A)
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
