Grogan Tuccillo & Vanderleeden LLP

General

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

or Log in

Cases8

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

grogan-tuccillo

gtv-ip.com

Practice Areas

Mech Eng, ManufChemicalDesign

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)
11/04/24	Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-06170 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss [80] : Defendants' responses are due by 11/29/2024 and Plaintiff's replies are due by 12/13/2024. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for default and default judgment [76] . The Court sets a ruling date on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss [80] for 2/11/2025 at 9:30 a.m. on Webex platform. Parties will not be asked to start their video. Counsel of record and other essential case participants will receive an email prior to the start of the hearing with instructions to join the hearing. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss [80] : Defendants' responses are due by 11/29/2024 and Plaintiff's replies are due by 12/13/2024. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for default and default judgment [76] . The Court sets a ruling date on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss [80] for 2/11/2025 at 9:30 a.m. on Webex platform. Parties will not be asked to start their video. Counsel of record and other essential case participants will receive an email prior to the start of the hearing with instructions to join the hearing. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
10/28/24	E Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co Ltd v. Entities Individuals 1:24-CV-07494 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Defendants HRX and Mericargo having answered the complaint [58] [63] , the parties are directed to review the procedures for initial status reports, located at [https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?79eF+7uiX7ewBj/ITKrjoA==] and to submit an initial status report by 11/6/2024. The report should include a proposed case management schedule reflecting any disputes between the parties as to the proposed schedule. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 10/28/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Defendants HRX and Mericargo having answered the complaint [58] [63] , the parties are directed to review the procedures for initial status reports, located at [https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?79eF+7uiX7ewBj/ITKrjoA==] and to submit an initial status report by 11/6/2024. The report should include a proposed case management schedule reflecting any disputes between the parties as to the proposed schedule. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 10/28/2024)
07/16/24	Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-16703 ( N.D. IL )	FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 7/16/2024. Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 07/16/2024)
07/16/24	Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-16703 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: No remaining defendant has responded to plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion 61 is granted. Based on the evidence previously submitted by plaintiff and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that a permanent injunction should be entered. The infringement of plaintiff's design patent irreparably harms plaintiff and confuses the public. This infringement was willful and compensatory damages are awarded. The Court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to $20,760.13, as a reasonable calculation of profits of 20% of the admitted combined total revenue and the statutory minimums. Plaintiff has also certified and established 63 that it provided electronic notice to defendants of the objection deadline, but no objection to the motion for entry of default judgment has been filed on behalf of any defendant. The five-thousand-dollar ($5,000.00 USD) bond posted by plaintiff, including any applicable or earned interest, is hereby released to plaintiff's counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return said bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to plaintiff's counsel by check made out to: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC, 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 615, Dallas, Texas 75231. Enter separate Final Default Judgment Order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 07/16/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: No remaining defendant has responded to plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion 61 is granted. Based on the evidence previously submitted by plaintiff and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that a permanent injunction should be entered. The infringement of plaintiff's design patent irreparably harms plaintiff and confuses the public. This infringement was willful and compensatory damages are awarded. The Court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to $20,760.13, as a reasonable calculation of profits of 20% of the admitted combined total revenue and the statutory minimums. Plaintiff has also certified and established 63 that it provided electronic notice to defendants of the objection deadline, but no objection to the motion for entry of default judgment has been filed on behalf of any defendant. The five-thousand-dollar ($5,000.00 USD) bond posted by plaintiff, including any applicable or earned interest, is hereby released to plaintiff's counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return said bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to plaintiff's counsel by check made out to: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC, 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 615, Dallas, Texas 75231. Enter separate Final Default Judgment Order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 07/16/2024)
08/09/23	Mestek Machinery Inc v. Elgen Mfg Co Inc 3:22-CV-30086 ( D. MA )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by HJ Fischer, LLC, Mestek Machinery, Inc. (Vanderleeden, Kevin) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
03/02/21	Wagner v. Ashline 5:18-CV-00123 ( W.D. NC )	Transmission of Notice of Appeal to Federal Circuit Court of Appeals re 111 Notice of Appeal to Federal Circuit (tmg) (Entered: 03/02/2021)
03/02/21	Wagner v. Ashline 5:18-CV-00123 ( W.D. NC )	NOTICE OF APPEAL to Federal Circuit as to 100 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Strike, by Julie Wagner. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0419-4921309. (Grogan, James) (Entered: 03/02/2021)
03/02/21	Wagner v. Ashline 5:18-CV-00123 ( W.D. NC )	Document Deleted. Refiled as (Document No. 111) (Grogan, James) Modified on 3/2/2021 (tmg). (Entered: 03/02/2021)