Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsN.D. Illinois

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
10/18/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	DECLARATION of David Silver regarding motion for temporary restraining order,,,, [9] , terminate deadlines,,,,,,,,, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,,,,,,,, [13] , complaint [1] RE: SERVICE OF COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THIS COURTS MINUTE ORDER (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David Silver, # [2] Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David Silver)(Silver, David) (Entered: 10/18/2024) DECLARATION of David Silver regarding motion for temporary restraining order,,,, [9] , terminate deadlines,,,,,,,,, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,,,,,,,, [13] , complaint [1] RE: SERVICE OF COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THIS COURTS MINUTE ORDER (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David Silver, # [2] Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David Silver)(Silver, David) (Entered: 10/18/2024)
10/17/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The second minute order [12] of 10/16/2024 was entered in error and is withdrawn. The following minute order is substituted in its place: Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion [9] for a temporary restraining order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that a temporary restraining order without notice to the nonmoving parties may be issued "only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Rule 65(b)(1) imposes "strict procedural requirements" that must be observed, and the record must reflect "a valid reason for proceeding ex parte." Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's motion [9] includes a citation (p. 15) to Rule 65(b)(1) but does not discuss the rule's requirements or cite evidence satisfying the rule. Plaintiff may, if it chooses, refile its motion in an attempt to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1)'s requirements. Alternatively, plaintiff should serve defendants with its complaint [1] , motion for temporary restraining order [9] , the accompanying exhibits, plaintiff's proposed form of temporary restraining order, and a copy of this minute order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. In this event, plaintiff must file a certificate of service on or before 10/18/2024, and defendants have until and including 10/22/2024 to file a response to, or request a hearing on, plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by and including 10/24/2024. Any hearing will be conducted via teleconference. A hearing may be requested by sending a message, copying all counsel of record, to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/17/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The second minute order [12] of 10/16/2024 was entered in error and is withdrawn. The following minute order is substituted in its place: Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion [9] for a temporary restraining order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that a temporary restraining order without notice to the nonmoving parties may be issued "only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Rule 65(b)(1) imposes "strict procedural requirements" that must be observed, and the record must reflect "a valid reason for proceeding ex parte." Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's motion [9] includes a citation (p. 15) to Rule 65(b)(1) but does not discuss the rule's requirements or cite evidence satisfying the rule. Plaintiff may, if it chooses, refile its motion in an attempt to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1)'s requirements. Alternatively, plaintiff should serve defendants with its complaint [1] , motion for temporary restraining order [9] , the accompanying exhibits, plaintiff's proposed form of temporary restraining order, and a copy of this minute order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. In this event, plaintiff must file a certificate of service on or before 10/18/2024, and defendants have until and including 10/22/2024 to file a response to, or request a hearing on, plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by and including 10/24/2024. Any hearing will be conducted via teleconference. A hearing may be requested by sending a message, copying all counsel of record, to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/17/2024)
10/16/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion [9] for a temporary restraining order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that a temporary restraining order without notice to the nonmoving parties may be issued "only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Rule 65(b)(1) imposes "strict procedural requirements" that must be observed, and the record must reflect "a valid reason for proceeding ex parte." Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff cites Rule 65(b)(1) on page 15 of its motion, but plaintiff does not analyze the rule's requirements and does not cite an affidavit, declaration, or an attorney's statement purporting to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1)'s requirements. Plaintiff's failure to address meaningfully Rule 65(b)(1) requires denial of its motion. See Am. Can Co.,742 F.2d at 32122. Although it is not required to do so given plaintiff's failure to provide any meaningful argument concerning Rule 65(b)(1), the court has reviewed the declaration of one of plaintiff's attorneys, David Silver, attached to the instant motion [9-1]. The court located no explanation in Silver's declaration or plaintiff's motion of why defendants should not be given notice before the court considers issuing a temporary restraining order freezing defendants' assets. On another subject, plaintiff argues that freezing defendants' assets is appropriate to preserve its right to an equitable accounting of profits. In support of this argument, plaintiff's attorney avers that absent an asset freeze, "Defendants can, and likely will, move any assets maintained in U.S.-based bank accounts to offshore accounts outside of this Court's jurisdiction. Defendants will likely attempt to avoid a future judgment by keeping the account as low as possible before ultimately abandoning the Amazon store and opening a new store under a new alias." Silver Decl. ¶ 18. By its terms, this argument concerns what defendants are likely to do at the end of this case, not at the temporary restraining order stage. Furthermore, plaintiff's analogy to so-called "schedule A" cases appears strained as a justification for proceeding ex parte. Plaintiff primarily seeks a declaration of patent invalidity. Plaintiff's claims stem from defendants' apparently successful use of Amazon.com's intellectual property dispute resolution process to enforce one of their patents and remove plaintiff's allegedly infringing product from Amazon.com. See Silver Decl. ¶¶ 4-13. Unlike in many schedule A cases, it is not clear to the court why defendants would be willing immediately to abandon their Amazon.com store and any good will and internet visibility the store has accumulated. For all of these reasons, plaintiff has not provided the justification for proceeding ex parte required by Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiff is therefore ordered to serve defendants with its complaint [1] , motion for temporary restraining order [9] , the accompanying exhibits, plaintiff's proposed form of temporary restraining order, and a copy of this minute order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff must file a certificate of service on or before 10/17/2024. Defendants have until and including 10/21/2024 to file a response to, or request a hearing on, plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by and including 10/23/2024. Any hearing will be conducted via teleconference. A hearing may be requested by sending a message, copying all counsel of record, to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion [9] for a temporary restraining order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that a temporary restraining order without notice to the nonmoving parties may be issued "only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Rule 65(b)(1) imposes "strict procedural requirements" that must be observed, and the record must reflect "a valid reason for proceeding ex parte." Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff cites Rule 65(b)(1) on page 15 of its motion, but plaintiff does not analyze the rule's requirements and does not cite an affidavit, declaration, or an attorney's statement purporting to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1)'s requirements. Plaintiff's failure to address meaningfully Rule 65(b)(1) requires denial of its motion. See Am. Can Co.,742 F.2d at 32122. Although it is not required to do so given plaintiff's failure to provide any meaningful argument concerning Rule 65(b)(1), the court has reviewed the declaration of one of plaintiff's attorneys, David Silver, attached to the instant motion [9-1]. The court located no explanation in Silver's declaration or plaintiff's motion of why defendants should not be given notice before the court considers issuing a temporary restraining order freezing defendants' assets. On another subject, plaintiff argues that freezing defendants' assets is appropriate to preserve its right to an equitable accounting of profits. In support of this argument, plaintiff's attorney avers that absent an asset freeze, "Defendants can, and likely will, move any assets maintained in U.S.-based bank accounts to offshore accounts outside of this Court's jurisdiction. Defendants will likely attempt to avoid a future judgment by keeping the account as low as possible before ultimately abandoning the Amazon store and opening a new store under a new alias." Silver Decl. ¶ 18. By its terms, this argument concerns what defendants are likely to do at the end of this case, not at the temporary restraining order stage. Furthermore, plaintiff's analogy to so-called "schedule A" cases appears strained as a justification for proceeding ex parte. Plaintiff primarily seeks a declaration of patent invalidity. Plaintiff's claims stem from defendants' apparently successful use of Amazon.com's intellectual property dispute resolution process to enforce one of their patents and remove plaintiff's allegedly infringing product from Amazon.com. See Silver Decl. ¶¶ 4-13. Unlike in many schedule A cases, it is not clear to the court why defendants would be willing immediately to abandon their Amazon.com store and any good will and internet visibility the store has accumulated. For all of these reasons, plaintiff has not provided the justification for proceeding ex parte required by Rule 65(b)(1). Plaintiff is therefore ordered to serve defendants with its complaint [1] , motion for temporary restraining order [9] , the accompanying exhibits, plaintiff's proposed form of temporary restraining order, and a copy of this minute order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff must file a certificate of service on or before 10/17/2024. Defendants have until and including 10/21/2024 to file a response to, or request a hearing on, plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by and including 10/23/2024. Any hearing will be conducted via teleconference. A hearing may be requested by sending a message, copying all counsel of record, to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
10/16/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff's motion [10] for leave to exceed the Local Rule 7.1 page limit is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [9] , which includes 21 pages of substantive argument, is deemed filed with leave of court. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
10/15/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Changsha Jiangli Trading Co., Ltd. for temporary restraining order INCLUDING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, AND SERVICE OF PROCESS BY E-MAIL AND/OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of D. Silver in Support of Motion for TRO, # [2] Declaration of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [3] Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [4] Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [5] Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [6] Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [7] Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [8] Declaration of J. Sullivan in Support of TRO, # [9] Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of of J. Sullivan in Support of TRO, # [10] Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of of J. Sullivan in Support of TRO)(Silver, David) (Entered: 10/15/2024) MOTION by Plaintiff Changsha Jiangli Trading Co., Ltd. for temporary restraining order INCLUDING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, AND SERVICE OF PROCESS BY E-MAIL AND/OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of D. Silver in Support of Motion for TRO, # [2] Declaration of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [3] Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [4] Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [5] Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [6] Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of D. Silver and of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [7] Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Z. Zeng in Support of Motion for TRO, # [8] Declaration of J. Sullivan in Support of TRO, # [9] Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of of J. Sullivan in Support of TRO, # [10] Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of of J. Sullivan in Support of TRO)(Silver, David) (Entered: 10/15/2024)
10/15/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Changsha Jiangli Trading Co., Ltd. for leave to file excess pages IN MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE (Silver, David) (Entered: 10/15/2024)
10/08/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	ORDER: An initial status report is due on or before December 11, 2024. Counsel and parties are directed to familiarize themselves with the pretrial procedures in Judge Gottschall's case management packet, which is available from the court's website at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Please pay particular attention to the requirement to exchange initial disclosures within 14 days of the parties' initial discovery planning conference and the court's requirement that the parties are to explore settlement opportunities and identify areas of agreement prior to the filing of the first status report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C) and 26(f)(2).If, by the due date of the scheduled status report, defendants have not been served, plaintiff should send an email to the chambers email account, chambers_gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov, to reset the status date. Counsel in cases removed from another court should follow these procedures to the extent applicable. See the order and Judge Gottschall's case management packet for further details. Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 10/8/2024.Mailed notice(mjc, ) (Entered: 10/08/2024) ORDER: An initial status report is due on or before December 11, 2024. Counsel and parties are directed to familiarize themselves with the pretrial procedures in Judge Gottschall's case management packet, which is available from the court's website at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Please pay particular attention to the requirement to exchange initial disclosures within 14 days of the parties' initial discovery planning conference and the court's requirement that the parties are to explore settlement opportunities and identify areas of agreement prior to the filing of the first status report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C) and 26(f)(2).If, by the due date of the scheduled status report, defendants have not been served, plaintiff should send an email to the chambers email account, chambers_gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov, to reset the status date. Counsel in cases removed from another court should follow these procedures to the extent applicable. See the order and Judge Gottschall's case management packet for further details. Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 10/8/2024.Mailed notice(mjc, ) (Entered: 10/08/2024)
10/07/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (smb, ) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
10/07/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( N.D. IL )	CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (bi, ) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
10/07/24	Changsha Jiangli Trading Co Ltd v. He 1:24-CV-09575 ( 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. (bi, ) (Entered: 10/07/2024)] 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. (bi, ) (Entered: 10/07/2024)]