DPG USA Inc

General

Total Cases2

Active Cases2

Patents34

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
12/13/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unicorp Associations 1:24-CV-12341 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: The Court previously entered an order [12] questioning whether Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that permissive joinder of Defendant Nos. 1-37 in this case was proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. Plaintiff was granted leave to file either a supplemental memorandum or an amended Schedule A consistent with that ruling. In response, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal Under Rule 41(a)(1) [13] voluntarily dismissing Defendant Nos. 1-23, a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Joinder [14] [15] , and an Amended Schedule A including Defendant Nos. 24-37 only. Plaintiff essentially argues that joinder is proper because Defendant Nos. 24-37 all sell the identical products on Temu and use identical advertising images and such similarities support its conclusory allegation that Defendants jointly and severally infringed Plaintiff's patent, but the Court remains unconvinced. See Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23 C 4587, 2024 WL 68332, at 2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (finding that plaintiff's allegations that all of the defendants' online storefronts share numerous similarities, are located in China, and have a similar number of employees were insufficient to establish joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299). Furthermore, Plaintiff's argument that all Defendants' use of the "same" rather than "similar" images is not persuasive. See id. ("Even if the webpages were identical, it would not necessarily suggest the defendants are connected. To the contrary, it would hardly be surprising that multiple, independent sellers of similar products would parrot each other's webpages or match each other's prices."). Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the misjoinder here, the Court exercises its discretion to do so. Therefore, the Court dismisses Defendant Nos. 25-37 without prejudice for improper joinder. This action will proceed as to Defendant No. 24 only. Plaintiff's motions for electronic service [4] and a TRO [5] as to all Defendants are terminated as moot. By 12/31/24, Plaintiff may file renewed electronic service and TRO motions as to Defendant No. 24, whose identity shall remain under seal until that date. If Plaintiff does not request further relief as to Defendant No. 24, all previously sealed documents will be unsealed, and this case may be dismissed for want of prosecution. Emailed notice. (cdh, ) (Entered: 12/13/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: The Court previously entered an order [12] questioning whether Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that permissive joinder of Defendant Nos. 1-37 in this case was proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. Plaintiff was granted leave to file either a supplemental memorandum or an amended Schedule A consistent with that ruling. In response, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal Under Rule 41(a)(1) [13] voluntarily dismissing Defendant Nos. 1-23, a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Joinder [14] [15] , and an Amended Schedule A including Defendant Nos. 24-37 only. Plaintiff essentially argues that joinder is proper because Defendant Nos. 24-37 all sell the identical products on Temu and use identical advertising images and such similarities support its conclusory allegation that Defendants jointly and severally infringed Plaintiff's patent, but the Court remains unconvinced. See Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23 C 4587, 2024 WL 68332, at 2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (finding that plaintiff's allegations that all of the defendants' online storefronts share numerous similarities, are located in China, and have a similar number of employees were insufficient to establish joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299). Furthermore, Plaintiff's argument that all Defendants' use of the "same" rather than "similar" images is not persuasive. See id. ("Even if the webpages were identical, it would not necessarily suggest the defendants are connected. To the contrary, it would hardly be surprising that multiple, independent sellers of similar products would parrot each other's webpages or match each other's prices."). Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the misjoinder here, the Court exercises its discretion to do so. Therefore, the Court dismisses Defendant Nos. 25-37 without prejudice for improper joinder. This action will proceed as to Defendant No. 24 only. Plaintiff's motions for electronic service [4] and a TRO [5] as to all Defendants are terminated as moot. By 12/31/24, Plaintiff may file renewed electronic service and TRO motions as to Defendant No. 24, whose identity shall remain under seal until that date. If Plaintiff does not request further relief as to Defendant No. 24, all previously sealed documents will be unsealed, and this case may be dismissed for want of prosecution. Emailed notice. (cdh, ) (Entered: 12/13/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff DPG USA Inc. by Allen Justin Poplin (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by DPG USA Inc. (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff DPG USA Inc. to seal [2] (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by DPG USA Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order [5] (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff DPG USA Inc. for temporary restraining order (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff DPG USA Inc.Electronic Service of Process (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	CIVIL Cover Sheet (Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-12771 ( N.D. IL )	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff DPG USA Inc. UNREDACTED Complaint (Attachments: # [1] Appendix Schedule A, # [2] Appendix Schedule A-1, # [3] Appendix Schedule A-2, # [4] Exhibit 1)(Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/12/24	DPG USA Inc v. Partnerships Unicorp Associations 1:24-CV-12341 ( N.D. IL )	SEALED RESPONSE by DPG USA Inc. to memorandum, [14] , order on motion for miscellaneous relief,,,,,,,,, order on motion for temporary restraining order,,,,,,,,, order on motion to seal,,,,,,,,, set deadlines,,,,,,,,, terminate motions,,,,,,,, [12] (Attachments: # [1] Appendix Schedule A)(Poplin, Allen Justin) (Entered: 12/12/2024)