Stratum Law Firm

Illinois

General

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

or Log in

Cases30

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

stratum-conseil

stratum.fr

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
11/15/24	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)
11/13/24	Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-04134 ( N.D. IL )	DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 11/8/2024. Mailed notice. (vk) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
11/07/24	Kitsch LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Corps 1:24-CV-05628 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N Alexakis:Motion hearing held on 11/7/24. Defendants were not present. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [61] is granted with respect to Exhibit 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to add parties and amend Schedule A [53] is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [39] is granted. A revised proposed Preliminary Injunction order should be submitted to the proposed order mailbox by 11/7/24. (ca, ) (Entered: 11/07/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N Alexakis:Motion hearing held on 11/7/24. Defendants were not present. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [61] is granted with respect to Exhibit 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to add parties and amend Schedule A [53] is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [39] is granted. A revised proposed Preliminary Injunction order should be submitted to the proposed order mailbox by 11/7/24. (ca, ) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/07/24	Kitsch LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Corps 1:24-CV-05628 ( N.D. IL )	Notice of Submission of Modified Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order by Kitsch LLC (Attachments: # [1] Text of Proposed Order Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order)(Cantor, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/07/24	Jiang v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-11454 ( N.D. IL )	SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Caifa Jiang (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1-1, # [2] Exhibit 1-2, # [3] Exhibit 1-3, # [4] Exhibit 2, # [5] Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # [6] Exhibit Schedule A)(Zhang, Xiyan) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
10/28/24	Shenzhen Honghongjing Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-03943 ( N.D. IL )	PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 10/25/2024. Mailed notice. (evw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2024)
10/25/24	Shenzhen Honghongjing Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-03943 ( N.D. IL )	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) 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)
10/23/24	Huiying Health v. Ongshu Tang 1:24-CV-10319 ( N.D. IL )	MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (Attachments: # [1] (List of Patents, Ex. A)) (ph, ) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
10/09/24	E Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co Ltd v. Entities Individuals 1:23-CV-16802 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed the pending motion by Defendant Mossime to vacate the preliminary injunction [68] . The Court finds that it will need an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the relevant witnesses about whether the purchase agreement is fabricated or authentic. The Court sets a status hearing to discuss the logistics for this evidentiary hearing by videoconference on 10/16/24 at 11:00 a.m. central. The parties should meet and confer prior to this status hearing to discuss a plan for the evidentiary hearing, and also discuss whether a resolution, such as a bond by defendant, would resolve the case and allow the asset freeze to be lifted by an agreed order modifying the injunction. The Court does not permit the use of cell phones for the videoconference. Details about the video link will follow from the Courtroom Deputy. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 10/09/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed the pending motion by Defendant Mossime to vacate the preliminary injunction [68] . The Court finds that it will need an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the relevant witnesses about whether the purchase agreement is fabricated or authentic. The Court sets a status hearing to discuss the logistics for this evidentiary hearing by videoconference on 10/16/24 at 11:00 a.m. central. The parties should meet and confer prior to this status hearing to discuss a plan for the evidentiary hearing, and also discuss whether a resolution, such as a bond by defendant, would resolve the case and allow the asset freeze to be lifted by an agreed order modifying the injunction. The Court does not permit the use of cell phones for the videoconference. Details about the video link will follow from the Courtroom Deputy. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 10/09/2024)