Froectry 360 Photo Booth

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
01/12/25	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited in support of motion for preliminary injunction [26] (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of Zhiwei Hua)(Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 01/12/2025)
01/12/25	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited for preliminary injunction (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 01/12/2025)
12/30/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Huang-us, EIJOFI, XAZIMO, FROECTRY-360 PHOTO BOOTH, FOOTIELD-360 Photo Booth by Jiyuan Zhang (Zhang, Jiyuan) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
12/30/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited Notice of Settlement and Dismissal Under Rule 41(A)(1) as to Certain Defendants (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 12/30/2024)
12/15/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited for extension of time of TRO (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 12/15/2024)
12/12/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited Notice of Settlement and Dismissal Under Rule 41(A)(1) as to Certain Defendant (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 12/12/2024)
12/05/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	BOND in the amount of $ 10,000, cashier's check Receipt No.100013875 posted by Marvel Technology (China) Co., Limited (gmm) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
12/02/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 12/2/2024. (exr, ) (Entered: 12/02/2024)
12/02/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [7] , and motion for electronic service of process [11] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 8 6-8) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff's patented works to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action, but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. The disabling of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 12/02/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [7] , and motion for electronic service of process [11] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 8 6-8) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff's patented works to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action, but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. The disabling of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 12/02/2024)
10/23/24	Marvel Technology China Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-05280 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's "Motion for Decision" [18] is denied. Plaintiff's pending "Schedule A" routine motions, of which the Court is aware, will be addressed in due course. Mailed notice (jfk) (Entered: 10/23/2024)