SHM Law Firm

California

General

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

or Log in

Cases7

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

steeltubes.pl

Practice Areas

Mech Eng, ManufSemicond., OpticDesign

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	Pathway IP LLC v. Luxsure 1:24-CV-11651 ( N.D. IL )	ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 11/12/2024. (nsf, ) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
11/13/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Luxsure 1:24-CV-11651 ( N.D. IL )	CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. FEE DUE, NO INFORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION SUBMITTED. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). (nsf, ) (Docket text modified on 11/13/2024) (nsf, ). (Entered: 11/13/2024)
11/13/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Luxsure 1:24-CV-11651 ( N.D. IL )	CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached [Consent To][ form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (nsf, ) (Entered: 11/13/2024)] CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached [Consent To][ form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (nsf, ) (Entered: 11/13/2024)]
11/13/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Luxsure 1:24-CV-11651 ( N.D. IL )	ORDER: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons in the attached Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct's Amended Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Improper Joinder 105. Enter Order. Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct have been misjoined in this action, and the claims against those Defendants are severed from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case as to Defendant Luxsure-US and Defendant Yarrashop Direct and to assign such action to this Court. Pathway is required to pay the filing fee. Based on this ruling, by November 15, 2024 the Court orders Pathway to file a status report as to whether it will be proceeding as to the remaining Defendants in one action or grouping Defendants in separate actions. Based on that status report, the Court will set new deadlines for an Amended Complaint in this original action, and any severed actions. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 11/12/2024Mailed notice(nsf, ) (Entered: 11/13/2024) ORDER: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons in the attached Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct's Amended Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Improper Joinder 105. Enter Order. Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct have been misjoined in this action, and the claims against those Defendants are severed from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case as to Defendant Luxsure-US and Defendant Yarrashop Direct and to assign such action to this Court. Pathway is required to pay the filing fee. Based on this ruling, by November 15, 2024 the Court orders Pathway to file a status report as to whether it will be proceeding as to the remaining Defendants in one action or grouping Defendants in separate actions. Based on that status report, the Court will set new deadlines for an Amended Complaint in this original action, and any severed actions. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 11/12/2024Mailed notice(nsf, ) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
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)
10/02/24	Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co Ltd v. Hyper Ice Inc 8:24-CV-01472 ( C.D. CA )	ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John W. Holcomb. Scheduling Conference set for 11/22/2024 at 11:00 AM before Judge John W. Holcomb. (cla) (Entered: 10/02/2024)
06/28/24	Hyper Ice v. Toloco Inc 8:24-CV-00099 ( C.D. CA )	REPORT ON THE DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or Trademark. (Closing) (rolm) (Entered: 06/28/2024)