Tabet Divito & Rothstein
General
Cases28
Challenger50%
Patent Owner50%
NPE50%
Practice Areas
Software, SecurityTransport., E-Comm.Semicond., Optic
Top Attorneys
Elite Ratings
DCTPTABCAFC
Analytics
Lawyers
Cases
Ratings Trends
Practice Areas
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 11/15/24 | 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 certain Defendants. R. 225, Mot. Default; R. 226, Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [225] without prejudice for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to a reasonable royalty of $10,000 plus 10% of defaulting Defendants sales of unauthorized products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In support of the $10,000 licensing fee, Plaintiff cites to the Declaration of Sason Gabay. Decl. Gabay 8. However, Plaintiff does not explain its calculation of the 10% of defaulting Defendants' sales of unauthorized products. Instead, Plaintiff includes a table with a column titled "10% Royalty of Sales by Defendant" without explanation, citation, or supporting documentation. Memo. at 11-12. Further, by the title of the column, it appears that Plaintiff is including all sales by the Defaulting Defendant, and it is not limited to only sales of the authorized products. Second, Plaintiff requests transaction costs, and cites one out-of-district case supporting this request, while maintaining that "courts have routinely held that a hypothetical license negotiation would have required transaction costs, which would be paid by the Defaulting Defendants." Id. at 9. However, Plaintiff does not support this request with any in-district case law or additional supporting authority, or describe how it arrived at the $5,000 per Defaulting Defendant transaction cost amount. Instead, Plaintiff cites to the amount of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Id. (citing Decl. Lee 9). It does not follow that a hypothetical license negotiation estimate would be the amount of the attorney's fees incurred in this case, which involves prosecuting alleged patent infringement. Finally, Plaintiff requests treble damages for each Defaulting Defendant. Memo. at 9. 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 two cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, both cases were out-of-district, and none concerned Schedule A patent infringement cases. In any renewed default motion, Plaintiff must support its request for each category of damages with supporting authority, and to explain its methodology and calculation of the royalty of sales per each Defaulting Defendant, with supporting documentation. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits for the unauthorized sales, 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. (jcm) (Entered: 11/15/2024) | |
| 11/15/24 | STATUS Report by Pathway IP LLC Presented before District Judge (Haque, Sameeul) (Entered: 11/15/2024) | |
| 10/28/24 | PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 10/25/2024. Mailed notice. (evw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2024) | |
| 10/25/24 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Motion hearing held on 10/25/24. Defendant #19 present in person via defense counsel. No defendant objected in response to the TRO or Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction [38] . Accordingly, and based upon the same findings made in this Court's TRO [32] , this Court finds that a preliminary injunction is appropriate and warranted, as well as unopposed and grants Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [38] . Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. The Court directs the Clerk to unseal any previously sealed documents in this matter. Plaintiff shall file an updated status report by 12/13/24, and Plaintiff's counsel shall add all defendants listed on Schedule A to the Court's docket within three business days. Plaintiff may find instructions at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_cmecf/pdfs/v60/Add_Terminate_Instructions.pdf. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 10/25/2024) | |
| 07/17/24 | FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment relating to Maeytau (Defendant No. 15) (Wolfgram, Pete) (Entered: 07/17/2024) | |
| 07/15/24 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Defendant's second unopposed motion for extension of time to answer 20 is granted. Defendant to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint by 7/29/2024. The parties' joint status report is due by 7/31/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Outline for the initial joint status report) (rao, ) (Entered: 07/15/2024) | |
| 07/15/24 | MOTION by Defendant FlexLatch LLC for extension of time to file answer unopposed (Carter, Alison) (Entered: 07/15/2024) | |
| 02/21/24 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Attorney Steven E. Jedlinski's motion to withdraw as attorney for Defendant 226 is granted. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 02/21/2024) | |
| 01/17/24 | DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 1/17/2024:Mailed notice(rj, ) (Entered: 01/17/2024) | |
| 08/04/23 | SATISFACTION of Judgment (Hierl, Michael) (Entered: 08/04/2023) |