ZHONG LUN
General
Cases18
Challenger50%
Patent Owner50%
NPE50%
Practice Areas
CommunicationsTransport., E-Comm.Software, Security
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) | |
Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,253,217. 7,086,000. 7,200,613. 7,791,741. (Attachments: # [1] Order)(nms) | ||
| 10/20/20 | Civil Case Terminated pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal. The clerk will prepare the final Report to the Patent/Trademark or Copyright Office. (chmb) (Entered: 10/20/2020) | |
| 10/21/20 | Report to Patent/Trademark Office of Final Order. Form AO 120 e-mailed to notice_of_suit@uspto.gov. (jmg) (Entered: 10/21/2020) | |
| 10/20/20 | STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL by Tactus Technologies LLC. (Rastegar, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/20/2020) | |
| 10/05/20 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond filed by Tactus Technologies LLC (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rastegar, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/05/2020) | |
| 07/20/20 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond filed by Tactus Technologies LLC (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Rastegar, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/20/2020) | |
| 07/17/20 | Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Certificate of Good Standing (Clerk Note: Filer states no fee is to be collected due to prior payment or waiver by MO 16 or prior order.) filed by OnePlus Mobile Communications (Guangdong) Co Ltd, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, OnePlus USA Corp (Attachments: # 1 Additional Page(s) Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)Attorney Helen Yu Zhang added to party OnePlus Mobile Communications (Guangdong) Co Ltd(pty:dft), Attorney Helen Yu Zhang added to party OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd(pty:dft), Attorney Helen Yu Zhang added to party OnePlus USA Corp(pty:dft) (Zhang, Helen) (Entered: 07/17/2020) | |
| 07/17/20 | Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Certificate of Good Standing (Filing fee $100; Receipt number 0539-11004415) filed by OnePlus Mobile Communications (Guangdong) Co Ltd, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, OnePlus USA Corp (Attachments: # 1 Additional Page(s) Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order) (OConnell, Sara) (Entered: 07/17/2020) |