Concord & Sage

Illinois

General

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

or Log in

Cases10

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

Practice Areas

Transport., 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
09/17/24	Guizhou Xiaozhi Sheep Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-04765 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by eBay Inc in Opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [25] (Attachments: # [1] Declaration Declaration of Nancy Lindsley)(Farley, William) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
09/17/24	Guizhou Xiaozhi Sheep Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-04765 ( N.D. IL )	ATTORNEY Appearance for Third Party Defendant eBay Inc by William Foster Farley (Farley, William) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
09/17/24	Guizhou Xiaozhi Sheep Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-04765 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Guizhou Xiaozhi Sheep Trading Co. Ltd Notice of Settlement and Dismissal Under Rule 41(A)(1) as to Defendant Nos.117, 126, 129, 330 (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
09/12/24	John Doe v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07707 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Along Ge for leave to file under seal (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/12/24	John Doe v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07707 ( N.D. IL )	AMENDED complaint by John Doe against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/12/24	John Doe v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07707 ( N.D. IL )	NEW PARTIES: Along Ge added to case caption. Terminating John Doe (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/05/24	Ningbo Port Zhonngdi Luggage Mfg Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05031 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Motion hearing held telephonically. Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants Gymax LLC, Infans, GoplusUS, Costzon, and Honeyjoy appeared. As discussed, Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to ensure that the names of all defendants listed on Schedule A to the Amended Complaint 14 are added as parties to the docket sheet as soon as possible. Plaintiff should proceed with having summons issued and promptly file proof of service on the docket once service is effectuated. Counsel are to confer on whether defendants will be served through counsel. By agreement, Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction 26 is entered and continued to 9/19/24 at 9:45AM. Attorneys/Parties should appear for the hearing by calling the Toll-Free Number: 877-336-1828, Access Code: 4082461. Please review in advance the policies governing telephonic hearings that can be found on Judge Hunt's webpage on the court website. Emailed notice. (cdh, ) (Entered: 09/05/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Motion hearing held telephonically. Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants Gymax LLC, Infans, GoplusUS, Costzon, and Honeyjoy appeared. As discussed, Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to ensure that the names of all defendants listed on Schedule A to the Amended Complaint 14 are added as parties to the docket sheet as soon as possible. Plaintiff should proceed with having summons issued and promptly file proof of service on the docket once service is effectuated. Counsel are to confer on whether defendants will be served through counsel. By agreement, Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction 26 is entered and continued to 9/19/24 at 9:45AM. Attorneys/Parties should appear for the hearing by calling the Toll-Free Number: 877-336-1828, Access Code: 4082461. Please review in advance the policies governing telephonic hearings that can be found on Judge Hunt's webpage on the court website. Emailed notice. (cdh, ) (Entered: 09/05/2024)
09/05/24	Ningbo Port Zhonngdi Luggage Mfg Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05031 ( N.D. IL )	RESPONSE by Costzon, GoplusUS, Gymax LLC, Honeyjoy, Infansin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Ningbo Port Zhonngdi Luggage Manufacturing Limited for preliminary injunction 26 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Lesko, Christina) (Entered: 09/05/2024)
08/26/24	XYZ Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Although the plaintiff has not filed a separate motion to seal, the Court finds it appropriate to permit the exhibits to the complaint 2 3 4 , provisionally under seal pending order, to remain under seal for the time being. The Court finds it inappropriate, however, for the plaintiff to proceed anonymously. The Seventh Circuit heavily disfavors anonymous, pseudonymous, or "no-name" litigation and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" that justify a refusal to self-identify. Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016). "[B]rand owners who seek relief against alleged counterfeiters may be frustrated by the stringent requirements for pseudonymous litigation. But in the absence of a change in binding Seventh Circuit caselaw, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the creation of an alternative legislative remedy, the current legal framework does not permit pseudonymity without a demonstration of circumstances more exceptional than those presented" in a typical "Schedule A" online counterfeiting case. XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 21-cv-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022); see also XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 20-cv-06610, 2020 WL 6681360, at 1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) (noting that in a case with an anonymous plaintiff suing a sealed schedule A, "[t]he public has no earthly idea who is suing whom," and striking the complaint because the plaintiff attempted to proceed anonymously without "request[ing] leave of Court, let alone establish[ing] that 'exceptional circumstances' justify shielding its identity"). The plaintiff has not requested leave of court to proceed anonymously, and its complaint identifies circumstances that are common to all "Schedule A" cases, meaning that the circumstances are, by definition, not exceptional. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file an amended, non-anonymous complaint 1 and to change the pseudonym used on the case caption on CM/ECF to the plaintiff's true identity by 8/30/2024. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 08/26/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Although the plaintiff has not filed a separate motion to seal, the Court finds it appropriate to permit the exhibits to the complaint 2 3 4 , provisionally under seal pending order, to remain under seal for the time being. The Court finds it inappropriate, however, for the plaintiff to proceed anonymously. The Seventh Circuit heavily disfavors anonymous, pseudonymous, or "no-name" litigation and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" that justify a refusal to self-identify. Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016). "[B]rand owners who seek relief against alleged counterfeiters may be frustrated by the stringent requirements for pseudonymous litigation. But in the absence of a change in binding Seventh Circuit caselaw, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the creation of an alternative legislative remedy, the current legal framework does not permit pseudonymity without a demonstration of circumstances more exceptional than those presented" in a typical "Schedule A" online counterfeiting case. XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 21-cv-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022); see also XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 20-cv-06610, 2020 WL 6681360, at 1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) (noting that in a case with an anonymous plaintiff suing a sealed schedule A, "[t]he public has no earthly idea who is suing whom," and striking the complaint because the plaintiff attempted to proceed anonymously without "request[ing] leave of Court, let alone establish[ing] that 'exceptional circumstances' justify shielding its identity"). The plaintiff has not requested leave of court to proceed anonymously, and its complaint identifies circumstances that are common to all "Schedule A" cases, meaning that the circumstances are, by definition, not exceptional. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file an amended, non-anonymous complaint 1 and to change the pseudonym used on the case caption on CM/ECF to the plaintiff's true identity by 8/30/2024. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/26/24	XYZ Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Although the plaintiff has not filed a separate motion to seal, the Court finds it appropriate to permit the exhibits to the complaint 2 3 4, provisionally under seal pending order, to remain under seal for the time being. The Court finds it inappropriate, however, for the plaintiff to proceed anonymously. The Seventh Circuit heavily disfavors anonymous, pseudonymous, or "no-name" litigation and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" that justify a refusal to self-identify. Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016). "[B]rand owners who seek relief against alleged counterfeiters may be frustrated by the stringent requirements for pseudonymous litigation. But in the absence of a change in binding Seventh Circuit caselaw, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the creation of an alternative legislative remedy, the current legal framework does not permit pseudonymity without a demonstration of circumstances more exceptional than those presented" in a typical "Schedule A" online counterfeiting case. XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 21-cv-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022); see also XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 20-cv-06610, 2020 WL 6681360, at 1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) (noting that in a case with an anonymous plaintiff suing a sealed schedule A, "[t]he public has no earthly idea who is suing whom," and striking the complaint because the plaintiff attempted to proceed anonymously without "request[ing] leave of Court, let alone establish[ing] that 'exceptional circumstances' justify shielding its identity"). The plaintiff has not requested leave of court to proceed anonymously, and its complaint identifies circumstances that are common to all "Schedule A" cases, meaning that the circumstances are, by definition, not exceptional. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file an amended, non-anonymous complaint 1 and to change the pseudonym used on the case caption on CM/ECF to the plaintiff's true identity by 8/30/2024. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 08/26/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Although the plaintiff has not filed a separate motion to seal, the Court finds it appropriate to permit the exhibits to the complaint 2 3 4, provisionally under seal pending order, to remain under seal for the time being. The Court finds it inappropriate, however, for the plaintiff to proceed anonymously. The Seventh Circuit heavily disfavors anonymous, pseudonymous, or "no-name" litigation and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" that justify a refusal to self-identify. Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016). "[B]rand owners who seek relief against alleged counterfeiters may be frustrated by the stringent requirements for pseudonymous litigation. But in the absence of a change in binding Seventh Circuit caselaw, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the creation of an alternative legislative remedy, the current legal framework does not permit pseudonymity without a demonstration of circumstances more exceptional than those presented" in a typical "Schedule A" online counterfeiting case. XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 21-cv-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022); see also XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 20-cv-06610, 2020 WL 6681360, at 1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) (noting that in a case with an anonymous plaintiff suing a sealed schedule A, "[t]he public has no earthly idea who is suing whom," and striking the complaint because the plaintiff attempted to proceed anonymously without "request[ing] leave of Court, let alone establish[ing] that 'exceptional circumstances' justify shielding its identity"). The plaintiff has not requested leave of court to proceed anonymously, and its complaint identifies circumstances that are common to all "Schedule A" cases, meaning that the circumstances are, by definition, not exceptional. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file an amended, non-anonymous complaint 1 and to change the pseudonym used on the case caption on CM/ECF to the plaintiff's true identity by 8/30/2024. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 08/26/2024)