|
[+]
1
|
2024-01-31 |
COMPLAINT filed by Oakley, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21588379. |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
Exhibit 4 |
|
|
Exhibit 5 |
|
2
|
2024-01-31 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1] |
|
3
|
2024-01-31 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 1 - Parts 1-3 regarding complaint[1] |
|
4
|
2024-01-31 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for leave to file under seal |
|
5
|
2024-01-31 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
6
|
2024-01-31 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Oakley, Inc. |
|
7
|
2024-01-31 |
Notice of Claims Involving Patents by Oakley, Inc. |
|
8
|
2024-01-31 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio |
|
9
|
2024-01-31 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler |
|
10
|
2024-01-31 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky |
|
11
|
2024-01-31 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Thomas Joseph Juettner |
|
12
|
2024-02-01 |
MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
|
[+]
13
|
2024-02-01 |
MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
|
|
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. |
|
14
|
2024-02-08 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
|
15
|
2024-02-08 |
MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 14 |
|
[+]
16
|
2024-02-08 |
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 15 |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
(Exhibit 2) |
|
[+]
17
|
2024-02-08 |
DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion 15 |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
[+]
18
|
2024-02-08 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 2 - Parts 1-3 regarding declaration 17 |
|
|
Exhibit 2-1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2-2 |
|
|
(Exhibit 2-3) |
|
19
|
2024-02-08 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
|
20
|
2024-02-08 |
MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 19 |
|
[+]
21
|
2024-02-08 |
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 20 |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
(Exhibit 2) |
|
22
|
2024-02-20 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by 3/5/2024 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the joinder restrictions in 35 U.S.C. § 299. |
|
23
|
2024-02-28 |
MEMORANDUM text entry 22 by Oakley, Inc. Establishing that Joinder is Proper |
|
[+]
24
|
2024-02-28 |
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum 23 |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
(Exhibit 4) |
|
25
|
2024-04-23 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has reviewed plaintiff's response, [23], to the court's 2/20/24 minute entry, [22], which directed plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the joinder restrictions in 35 U.S.C. § 299. For purposes of the show-cause order, [22], the court finds that plaintiff has discharged its obligation to show that the joinder requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 299 and Rule 20 have been met. See Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-536 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2021) (Docket No. 14). |
|
26
|
2024-04-23 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: For the reasons set forth in the motions, [4], [14], [19], filed by plaintiff Oakley, Inc., the supporting memoranda, [15], [20], and the temporary restraining order, plaintiff's motions for leave to file certain documents under seal, [4], for electronic service of process, [19], and for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery, [14], are granted. Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis. Specifically, 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 an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and the offering of products for sale into Illinois), the harm to plaintiff is irreparable, and an injunction is in the public interest. 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 other judges in this district have noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of the joinder of all defendants in this one action and whether plaintiff genuinely intends to pursue an accounting, but at this preliminary stage, plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting 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 revisit the asset freeze and joinder. Plaintiff shall deposit with the Clerk of Court ten-thousand dollars ($10,000.00), either cash or surety bond, as security. |
|
[+]
27
|
2024-04-23 |
SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 4/23/2024: |
|
|
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
|
28
|
2024-04-25 |
Registry Deposit Information Form by Oakley, Inc. |
|
29
|
2024-04-25 |
SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000 posted by Oakley, Inc. (Document not scanned.) |
|
[+]
30
|
2024-05-02 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants |
|
|
Exhibit A |
|
[+]
31
|
2024-05-02 |
MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction[30] |
|
|
Declaration of Berel Y. Lakovitsky |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
[+]
32
|
2024-05-02 |
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 5/2/2024, answer due 5/23/2024. |
|
|
Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner |
|
|
Exhibit A |
|
33
|
2024-05-03 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction as to certain defendants, 30. The court has taken the motion, 30, under advisement and will consider the motion unopposed if no defendant appears and objects by 5/10/24. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice. For the reasons stated in the court's order entering the TRO, the TRO is extended to and including the date on which the court adjudicates the motion for a preliminary injunction. See H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 843-45 (7th Cir. 2012). To the extent this extension exceeds the maximum duration for a TRO under FRCP 65(b), this extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective" Id. at 844. |
|
[+]
34
|
2024-05-06 |
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, 33 |
|
|
(Exhibit A) |
|
[+]
35
|
2024-05-13 |
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 5/13/2024, answer due 6/3/2024. |
|
|
Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner |
|
|
(Exhibit A) |
|
36
|
2024-05-23 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc.for Leave to Amend Schedule A to the Complaint Instanter |
|
37
|
2024-05-23 |
AMENDED exhibit 2 Amended Schedule A |
|
38
|
2024-05-30 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc.for Leave to Amend Schedule A to the Complaint Instanter |
|
39
|
2024-05-30 |
AMENDED exhibit 2 Amended Schedule A |
|
[+]
40
|
2024-06-05 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for entry of default as to all Defendants, MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants |
|
|
(Exhibit A) |
|
[+]
41
|
2024-06-05 |
MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 40 |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
[+]
42
|
2024-06-05 |
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 41 |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
43
|
2024-08-23 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend Schedule A to the complaint Instanter, 36 ; 38, are granted. Defendants No. 9 BPIgslllaa, and No. 11 DESLELV are dismissed. Plaintiffs have already filed the amended Schedule A on the docket. 39. Mailed notice. |
|
44
|
2024-08-23 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: No defendant has responded to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 40. The motion, 40, is granted. Based on the evidence submitted in support of the temporary restraining order and the motion for entry of default and default judgment, and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that the infringement was willful, that damages should be awarded in the amount of either $250 or the defendant's profits, whichever is greater for each defendant (as set out in the default judgment order), see 35 U.S.C. § 289, and that a permanent injunction should be entered. Plaintiff has shown that the infringement of its design patents causes it irreparable harm in the form of diminished goodwill and brand confidence, damage to plaintiff's reputation, loss of exclusivity, and loss of future sales; that monetary damages are inadequate to address these harms; and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. No defendant has appeared to argue otherwise. Thus, the court also finds that the balance of the hardships favors an injunction. The ten-thousand-dollar ($10,000) surety bond posted by plaintiff is hereby released to plaintiff's counsel. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to plaintiff's counsel, Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60606. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, 30, is denied as moot. Enter Default Final Judgment Order. Terminate civil case. Mailed notice. |
|
45
|
2024-08-23 |
DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 8/23/2024. Mailed notice. |
|
46
|
2024-08-29 |
NOTICE of withdrawal of bond 29 by John Summerfield. |
