Patent One LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint

MEMORANDUM by Patent One LLC in support of motion for default judgment 43 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shengmao Mu)(Neu, Abby) (Entered: 08/07/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for default judgment as to defaulting defendants (Neu, Abby) (Entered: 08/07/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment 39 is granted in part and denied in part. All remaining Defendants except for ZNCMRR have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default against those Defendants is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice. FRCP 54(b) says that a court "may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Plaintiff has not attempted to show that there is "no just reason to delay" a partial final judgment. It is doubtful that Plaintiff could make that showing, given the allegation at Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint that Defendants "appear to be an interrelated group of counterfeiters and infringers." Plaintiff ought to be precluded from making that assertion at the outset of this case (in large part to justify the joinder of multiple Defendants in "Schedule A") only to avoid its implications at judgment time. ZNCMRR remains in the case and has answered the complaint; so long as that Defendant remains, partial final judgment isn't warranted. Mailed notice (jfk) (Entered: 07/31/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Patent One LLC in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 39 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shengmao Mu)(Neu, Abby) (Entered: 07/31/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for default judgment as to defaulting defendants (Neu, Abby) (Entered: 07/31/2024)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/25/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/25/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 27 is granted. Enter separate preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff's filings establish that Plaintiff has acted expeditiously to protect its interests and that there remains a significant risk Defendants will transfer relevant assets beyond the Court's reach. For these reasons, as well as the reasons provided in the whole of Plaintiff's filings and as stated by the Court in connection with entry of the TRO, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff and that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from the marketing of counterfeit or infringing goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established 30 32 that it provided electronic notice to Defendants of the pendency of this case and provided a link to a website containing relevant case documents, but, despite the Court having provided 31 the opportunity to do so, no Defendant has objected to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all Defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the docket within five business days. The Clerk is directed to unseal any and all previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/25/2024)

CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Patent One LLC regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for preliminary injunction 27 (Mu, Shengmao) (Entered: 07/03/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Patent One LLC in support of motion for preliminary injunction 27 (Smith, Keaton) (Entered: 07/03/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for preliminary injunction (Smith, Keaton) (Entered: 07/03/2024)

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/27/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/27/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to extend TRO 20 is granted. Enter separate order. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/27/2024)

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/11/2024. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/11/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint 2, motion for leave to file under seal 7, motion for leave to file electronic service of process 11, and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 15 are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 15 911) 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 identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 8, 9, 14, and 15 . 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 it 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 using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's patented works 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 counterfeit and 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 both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. The disabling of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. 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. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/11/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Patent One LLC for temporary restraining order (Mu, Shengmao) (Entered: 04/25/2024)