Delphine James PLLC

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases25

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

Practice Areas

DesignSemicond., OpticTransport., E-Comm.

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/22/24	XYZ Corp v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-22759 ( S.D. FL )	PAPERLESS ORDER on [56] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Certain Defendants Only ("Notice"). The Court having reviewed the Notice, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Numbered 52, 68, and 135 on "Schedule A" of the Amended Complaint, see [ECF No. 8-2], are dismissed from this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/22/2024. (jgz) (Entered: 11/22/2024) PAPERLESS ORDER on [56] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Certain Defendants Only ("Notice"). The Court having reviewed the Notice, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Numbered 52, 68, and 135 on "Schedule A" of the Amended Complaint, see [ECF No. 8-2], are dismissed from this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/22/2024. (jgz) (Entered: 11/22/2024)
11/22/24	XYZ Corp v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-22759 ( S.D. FL )	SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT as to Defendants, Dongguan Yinglang (Defendant No. 16), Glen Kayoo Direct (Defendant No. 20), TETSMG-US (Defendant No. 55) and VesipaFly (Defendant No. 58) by XYZ CORPORATION (Rubio, Humberto) (Entered: 11/22/2024)
11/22/24	XYZ Corp v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-22759 ( S.D. FL )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to Certain Defendants Only by XYZ CORPORATION (Rubio, Humberto) (Entered: 11/22/2024)
11/15/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	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) 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	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	STATUS Report by Pathway IP LLC Presented before District Judge (Haque, Sameeul) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/12/24	XYZ Corp v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-22237 ( S.D. FL )	Order Dismissing Defendants Jinyu NIU (No. 3), Vilstomes (No. 5), Ander Wan (No. 7), auto-hill (No. 8), deAccessories (No. 12), Filluck shop (No. 13), HANNE MEOW (No. 17), LAZMUMI (No. 21), Mrolife (No. 22), speedingd (No. 26), YCLTDD (No. 29), Hilinego (No. 34), Joinfworld (No. 35), YuanCkuyo (No. 38), Jaap Autotek (No. 42), best-homepro (No. 46), spau-1512 (No. 47), uassaday (No. 49), scdegr_1 (No. 50), SmarketBuy (No.251), and PetPals Shop (No. 52) with prejudice. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/12/2024. See attached document for full details. (nn00) (Entered: 11/12/2024) Order Dismissing Defendants Jinyu NIU (No. 3), Vilstomes (No. 5), Ander Wan (No. 7), auto-hill (No. 8), deAccessories (No. 12), Filluck shop (No. 13), HANNE MEOW (No. 17), LAZMUMI (No. 21), Mrolife (No. 22), speedingd (No. 26), YCLTDD (No. 29), Hilinego (No. 34), Joinfworld (No. 35), YuanCkuyo (No. 38), Jaap Autotek (No. 42), best-homepro (No. 46), spau-1512 (No. 47), uassaday (No. 49), scdegr_1 (No. 50), SmarketBuy (No.251), and PetPals Shop (No. 52) with prejudice. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/12/2024. See attached document for full details. (nn00) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
11/12/24	XYZ Corp v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-22237 ( S.D. FL )	SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT as to around_photo_sound (Defendant No. 45) by XYZ Corporation (Rubio, Humberto) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
11/07/24	Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 0:24-CV-60865 ( S.D. FL )	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Brandon Todd Holmes on behalf of Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,. Attorney Brandon Todd Holmes added to party Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co., Ltd.,(pty:pla). (Holmes, Brandon) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/07/24	Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 0:24-CV-60865 ( S.D. FL )	ORDER Setting Hearing on Motions: It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is set for a Motions Hearing on Tuesday, December 11, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., at the United States Federal Building and Courthouse, 299 East Broward Boulevard, Courtroom 205C, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Signed by Judge Melissa Damian on 11/7/2024. See attached document for full details. (wce) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
10/28/24	Zemiao Chen v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations 0:24-CV-60863 ( S.D. FL )	Order Dismissing Party Megabar and AXZTYYLA re [109] Stipulation of Dismissal Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 10/28/2024. See attached document for full details. (ar24) (Entered: 10/28/2024)