Camelbak Products, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto

MOTION by Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC for extension of time Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order

NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order 22, motion to expedite 27 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 7/21/2026 at 10:00 AM.

MEMORANDUM by Camelbak Products, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 22

MOTION by Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 7 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and "work in active concert" to infringe plaintiffs' intellectual property. But experience has shown that not all defendants named in a Schedule A case work together. More importantly, experience has shown that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder at least 7 days before the filing of the motion for temporary restraining order. Alternatively, by the same date, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint and amended Schedule A reducing the number of defendants. However, if Plaintiff names multiple defendants, Plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. The Court directs Plaintiff to this Court's standing order in Schedule A cases regarding joinder on the Court's website. The Seventh Circuit has clarified that establishing personal jurisdiction in Schedule A cases requires that plaintiffs show evidence, for each defendant, of actual sales to Illinois customers and of actual products shipped to Illinois. Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074, 2026 WL 880018, at *23 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026). Mere evidence of being willing to ship to Illinois customers is insufficient. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if additional evidence is needed to establish personal jurisdiction over each Defendant under this standard. Finally, the Seventh Circuit has also ruled that the Hague Convention does not permit service by email to defendants in China. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 2026 WL 1502198, at *5 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026). If Plaintiff intends to move to effectuate service via email on defendants located in China, then Plaintiff's motion will need to provide individualized arguments for each such Defendant that the Hague Convention does not apply, supported by details of the good faith effort Plaintiff has taken to ascertain the address of each such defendant. Mailed notice.