Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd

General

Total Cases21

Active Cases2

Patents48

CourtsN.D. Texas C.D. California N.D. Illinois

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L1

C

PTAB

L3

E

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
03/27/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE by Richard Joseph Lamar Lomuscio of Change of Address (Lomuscio, Richard) (Entered: 03/27/2024)
03/19/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment (Dckt. No. 179 ) is denied without prejudice. This case is about hoverboards. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd ("Chic") and Unicorn Global, Inc. sued various Defendants. See First Am. Cplt., at Â¶Â¶ 6-7 (Dckt. No. 36). Chic owns several hoverboard patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D785,112; and D784,195. Id. at Â¶13. The Court will refer to those patents as 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants violated 35 U.S.C. Â§ 271 by committing design patent infringement. Plaintiffs think that Defendants sold infringing hoverboards. Id. at Â¶Â¶ 40-59. But this case is not the only hoverboard case in the Northern District of Illinois. Chic and Unicorn Global, Inc. filed another patent infringement lawsuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships, No. 20-cv-4806 (N.D. Ill.). That case is before Judge Durkin. Before Judge Durkin, Plaintiffs also alleged that various Defendants infringed the same four patents-in-suit as in this case: 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. See Third Am. Cplt., at Â¶ 14 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 101). In this case, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion to dismiss. See Runchenyun's Mtn to Dismiss (Dckt. No. 89). Runchenyun invoked the claim splitting doctrine. It argued that Plaintiffs had already sued it in the lawsuit in front of Judge Durkin. See 6/1/21 Order (Dckt. No. 96). This Court denied the motion to dismiss. Id. This Court explained that it understood the complaint in this action to allege subsequent patent infringement, as compared to the other lawsuit. Id. After, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion for partial summary judgment. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). According to Defendant Runchenyun, no reasonable jury could find that the products it sells are "substantially similar to claimed designs of the Plaintiffs' patents." See Defs.' Mem., at 5 (Dckt. No. 180). After Defendant Runchenyun filed its motion, Judge Durkin issued a summary judgment decision in his hoverboard case. See 1/12/24 Opinion (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). The summary judgment decision did not apply to Defendant Runchenyun, because Plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed Runchenyun from Judge Durkin's case. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 267); 6/3/21 Order (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 276). In any event, Judge Durkin's summary judgment opinion dealt with the same issue before this Court whether a reasonable jury could find that the products that various defendants sold infringed Plaintiffs' patents. See 1/12/24 Opinion, at 3 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). Judge Durkin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his case. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs appealed. See Notice of Appeal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 690). The appeal is pending before the Federal Circuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1471). In sum, the issues in this case seem to overlap with the issues in the Federal Circuit appeal. In light of the overall, this Court wants to have the benefit of the Federal Circuit's opinion before it rules. For that reason, this Court denies Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). The parties must file a status report no later than one week after they learn that the Federal Circuit has issued a decision. The Court directs the parties to monitor that case from time to time, and keep the Court apprised of any developments. The status report must address whether Defendant Runchenyun seeks to refile its summary judgment motion, and if so, the parties must propose a briefing schedule. In sum, the Court will keep its powder dry until the Federal Circuit issues its decision. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 03/19/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment (Dckt. No. 179 ) is denied without prejudice. This case is about hoverboards. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd ("Chic") and Unicorn Global, Inc. sued various Defendants. See First Am. Cplt., at Â¶Â¶ 6-7 (Dckt. No. 36). Chic owns several hoverboard patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D785,112; and D784,195. Id. at Â¶13. The Court will refer to those patents as 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants violated 35 U.S.C. Â§ 271 by committing design patent infringement. Plaintiffs think that Defendants sold infringing hoverboards. Id. at Â¶Â¶ 40-59. But this case is not the only hoverboard case in the Northern District of Illinois. Chic and Unicorn Global, Inc. filed another patent infringement lawsuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships, No. 20-cv-4806 (N.D. Ill.). That case is before Judge Durkin. Before Judge Durkin, Plaintiffs also alleged that various Defendants infringed the same four patents-in-suit as in this case: 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. See Third Am. Cplt., at Â¶ 14 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 101). In this case, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion to dismiss. See Runchenyun's Mtn to Dismiss (Dckt. No. 89). Runchenyun invoked the claim splitting doctrine. It argued that Plaintiffs had already sued it in the lawsuit in front of Judge Durkin. See 6/1/21 Order (Dckt. No. 96). This Court denied the motion to dismiss. Id. This Court explained that it understood the complaint in this action to allege subsequent patent infringement, as compared to the other lawsuit. Id. After, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion for partial summary judgment. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). According to Defendant Runchenyun, no reasonable jury could find that the products it sells are "substantially similar to claimed designs of the Plaintiffs' patents." See Defs.' Mem., at 5 (Dckt. No. 180). After Defendant Runchenyun filed its motion, Judge Durkin issued a summary judgment decision in his hoverboard case. See 1/12/24 Opinion (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). The summary judgment decision did not apply to Defendant Runchenyun, because Plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed Runchenyun from Judge Durkin's case. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 267); 6/3/21 Order (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 276). In any event, Judge Durkin's summary judgment opinion dealt with the same issue before this Court whether a reasonable jury could find that the products that various defendants sold infringed Plaintiffs' patents. See 1/12/24 Opinion, at 3 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). Judge Durkin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his case. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs appealed. See Notice of Appeal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 690). The appeal is pending before the Federal Circuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1471). In sum, the issues in this case seem to overlap with the issues in the Federal Circuit appeal. In light of the overall, this Court wants to have the benefit of the Federal Circuit's opinion before it rules. For that reason, this Court denies Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). The parties must file a status report no later than one week after they learn that the Federal Circuit has issued a decision. The Court directs the parties to monitor that case from time to time, and keep the Court apprised of any developments. The status report must address whether Defendant Runchenyun seeks to refile its summary judgment motion, and if so, the parties must propose a briefing schedule. In sum, the Court will keep its powder dry until the Federal Circuit issues its decision. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
03/19/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment (Dckt. No. 179 ) is denied without prejudice. This case is about hoverboards. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd ("Chic") and Unicorn Global, Inc. sued various Defendants. See First Am. Cplt., at ¶¶ 6-7 (Dckt. No. 36). Chic owns several hoverboard patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D785,112; and D784,195. Id. at ¶13. The Court will refer to those patents as 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 by committing design patent infringement. Plaintiffs think that Defendants sold infringing hoverboards. Id. at ¶¶ 40-59. But this case is not the only hoverboard case in the Northern District of Illinois. Chic and Unicorn Global, Inc. filed another patent infringement lawsuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships, No. 20-cv-4806 (N.D. Ill.). That case is before Judge Durkin. Before Judge Durkin, Plaintiffs also alleged that various Defendants infringed the same four patents-in-suit as in this case: 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. See Third Am. Cplt., at ¶ 14 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 101). In this case, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion to dismiss. See Runchenyun's Mtn to Dismiss (Dckt. No. 89). Runchenyun invoked the claim splitting doctrine. It argued that Plaintiffs had already sued it in the lawsuit in front of Judge Durkin. See 6/1/21 Order (Dckt. No. 96). This Court denied the motion to dismiss. Id. This Court explained that it understood the complaint in this action to allege subsequent patent infringement, as compared to the other lawsuit. Id. After, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion for partial summary judgment. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). According to Defendant Runchenyun, no reasonable jury could find that the products it sells are "substantially similar to claimed designs of the Plaintiffs' patents." See Defs.' Mem., at 5 (Dckt. No. 180). After Defendant Runchenyun filed its motion, Judge Durkin issued a summary judgment decision in his hoverboard case. See 1/12/24 Opinion (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). The summary judgment decision did not apply to Defendant Runchenyun, because Plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed Runchenyun from Judge Durkin's case. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 267); 6/3/21 Order (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 276). In any event, Judge Durkin's summary judgment opinion dealt with the same issue before this Court whether a reasonable jury could find that the products that various defendants sold infringed Plaintiffs' patents. See 1/12/24 Opinion, at 3 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). Judge Durkin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his case. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs appealed. See Notice of Appeal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 690). The appeal is pending before the Federal Circuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1471). In sum, the issues in this case seem to overlap with the issues in the Federal Circuit appeal. In light of the overall, this Court wants to have the benefit of the Federal Circuit's opinion before it rules. For that reason, this Court denies Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). The parties must file a status report no later than one week after they learn that the Federal Circuit has issued a decision. The Court directs the parties to monitor that case from time to time, and keep the Court apprised of any developments. The status report must address whether Defendant Runchenyun seeks to refile its summary judgment motion, and if so, the parties must propose a briefing schedule. In sum, the Court will keep its powder dry until the Federal Circuit issues its decision. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 03/19/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment (Dckt. No. 179 ) is denied without prejudice. This case is about hoverboards. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd ("Chic") and Unicorn Global, Inc. sued various Defendants. See First Am. Cplt., at ¶¶ 6-7 (Dckt. No. 36). Chic owns several hoverboard patents: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D785,112; and D784,195. Id. at ¶13. The Court will refer to those patents as 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 by committing design patent infringement. Plaintiffs think that Defendants sold infringing hoverboards. Id. at ¶¶ 40-59. But this case is not the only hoverboard case in the Northern District of Illinois. Chic and Unicorn Global, Inc. filed another patent infringement lawsuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships, No. 20-cv-4806 (N.D. Ill.). That case is before Judge Durkin. Before Judge Durkin, Plaintiffs also alleged that various Defendants infringed the same four patents-in-suit as in this case: 'D723; 'D256; 'D112; and 'D195. See Third Am. Cplt., at ¶ 14 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 101). In this case, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion to dismiss. See Runchenyun's Mtn to Dismiss (Dckt. No. 89). Runchenyun invoked the claim splitting doctrine. It argued that Plaintiffs had already sued it in the lawsuit in front of Judge Durkin. See 6/1/21 Order (Dckt. No. 96). This Court denied the motion to dismiss. Id. This Court explained that it understood the complaint in this action to allege subsequent patent infringement, as compared to the other lawsuit. Id. After, Defendant Runchenyun filed a motion for partial summary judgment. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). According to Defendant Runchenyun, no reasonable jury could find that the products it sells are "substantially similar to claimed designs of the Plaintiffs' patents." See Defs.' Mem., at 5 (Dckt. No. 180). After Defendant Runchenyun filed its motion, Judge Durkin issued a summary judgment decision in his hoverboard case. See 1/12/24 Opinion (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). The summary judgment decision did not apply to Defendant Runchenyun, because Plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed Runchenyun from Judge Durkin's case. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 267); 6/3/21 Order (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 276). In any event, Judge Durkin's summary judgment opinion dealt with the same issue before this Court whether a reasonable jury could find that the products that various defendants sold infringed Plaintiffs' patents. See 1/12/24 Opinion, at 3 (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 686). Judge Durkin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his case. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs appealed. See Notice of Appeal (No. 20-cv-4806, Dckt. No. 690). The appeal is pending before the Federal Circuit. See ABC Corp. v. The Partnerships (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1471). In sum, the issues in this case seem to overlap with the issues in the Federal Circuit appeal. In light of the overall, this Court wants to have the benefit of the Federal Circuit's opinion before it rules. For that reason, this Court denies Defendant Runchenyun's motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. See Runchenyun's Mtn. for SJ (Dckt. No. 179). The parties must file a status report no later than one week after they learn that the Federal Circuit has issued a decision. The Court directs the parties to monitor that case from time to time, and keep the Court apprised of any developments. The status report must address whether Defendant Runchenyun seeks to refile its summary judgment motion, and if so, the parties must propose a briefing schedule. In sum, the Court will keep its powder dry until the Federal Circuit issues its decision. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 03/19/2024)
03/08/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Settlement conference held. Parties appeared via videoconference. The parties made substantial progress towards resolution but were unable to reach an agreement. The Court thanks counsel for their efforts at resolving this matter. If counsel believe a further a settlement conference would be productive, the Court is happy to further engage in settlement discussions upon re-referral. All matters relating to the referral of this case having been resolved, this matter is returned to the District Judge. Referral terminated. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 03/08/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Settlement conference held. Parties appeared via videoconference. The parties made substantial progress towards resolution but were unable to reach an agreement. The Court thanks counsel for their efforts at resolving this matter. If counsel believe a further a settlement conference would be productive, the Court is happy to further engage in settlement discussions upon re-referral. All matters relating to the referral of this case having been resolved, this matter is returned to the District Judge. Referral terminated. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 03/08/2024)
01/19/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate status hearing held. Parties appear by telephone. Case has been referred for settlement conference. Video settlement conference is set for 3/6/24 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant to confirm time with its client and shall contact the courtroom deputy with agreed times if the scheduled time does not work. Parties have had preliminary discussions. Court discussed its procedure for conducting the settlement conference. Plaintiff's settlement letter shall be delivered to Defendant by 2/21/24. Defendant's settlement letter shall be delivered to plaintiff by 2/28/24. Settlement letters are limited to 5 pages excluding attachments. The parties must also submit their respective letters by email to Proposed_Order_Weisman@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Please note that settlement letters and documents are not to be filed on the CM-ECF system. Parties shall confer and send ONE email to Weisman_Chambers@ilnd.uscourts.gov by 2/28/24, identifying the email addresses of the individuals who intend to participate in the settlement conference. Parties have no objection to the Court having ex parte discussions with counsel in advance of the settlement conference if the Court believes such conversations would be warranted. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 01/19/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate status hearing held. Parties appear by telephone. Case has been referred for settlement conference. Video settlement conference is set for 3/6/24 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant to confirm time with its client and shall contact the courtroom deputy with agreed times if the scheduled time does not work. Parties have had preliminary discussions. Court discussed its procedure for conducting the settlement conference. Plaintiff's settlement letter shall be delivered to Defendant by 2/21/24. Defendant's settlement letter shall be delivered to plaintiff by 2/28/24. Settlement letters are limited to 5 pages excluding attachments. The parties must also submit their respective letters by email to Proposed_Order_Weisman@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Please note that settlement letters and documents are not to be filed on the CM-ECF system. Parties shall confer and send ONE email to Weisman_Chambers@ilnd.uscourts.gov by 2/28/24, identifying the email addresses of the individuals who intend to participate in the settlement conference. Parties have no objection to the Court having ex parte discussions with counsel in advance of the settlement conference if the Court believes such conversations would be warranted. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 01/19/2024)
01/14/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE by Runchenyun of Recent Related Decision (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 20-cv-04806 Summary Judgment Order)(Zhang, Na) (Entered: 01/14/2024)
01/10/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Parties may appear in person or dial in using the Court's conference call-in number for the hearing set for today (1/16/24). The conference call-in number is 1-877-411-9748 and the passcode is 1814539. Please note that the Court's conference call-in will be used by all cases that are on the Court's calendar for the said date, therefore counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line and must have the telephone muted until your case is called by the Court. Once the Court has heard your case you shall disconnect from the conference line. Members of the public and media who wish to listen to this hearing may call in. 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 (ao, ) (Entered: 01/10/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Parties may appear in person or dial in using the Court's conference call-in number for the hearing set for today (1/16/24). The conference call-in number is 1-877-411-9748 and the passcode is 1814539. Please note that the Court's conference call-in will be used by all cases that are on the Court's calendar for the said date, therefore counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line and must have the telephone muted until your case is called by the Court. Once the Court has heard your case you shall disconnect from the conference line. Members of the public and media who wish to listen to this hearing may call in. 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 (ao, ) (Entered: 01/10/2024)
01/05/24	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: On the Court's own motion, the status hearing set for 1/16/24 will begin at 11:00 a.m. rather than at 9:15 a.m. (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE.) Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 01/05/2024)
12/28/23	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 12/28/2023) ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 12/28/2023)
12/28/23	Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-05905 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Weisman to conduct a settlement conference. The Court requests that counsel consult the Court's standing order on settlement conferences and related materials. Judge Weisman generally conducts settlement conferences Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays at either 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Other dates and times may be available as required by the Court or the parties. The Court directs the parties to confer no later than 1/5/24 regarding mutually agreeable dates in February 2024 and early March 2024 for the settlement conference and to jointly contact the Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Owens, via email to see if the date(s) are available for a settlement conference. Status hearing set for 1/16/24 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 12/28/2023) MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Weisman to conduct a settlement conference. The Court requests that counsel consult the Court's standing order on settlement conferences and related materials. Judge Weisman generally conducts settlement conferences Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays at either 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Other dates and times may be available as required by the Court or the parties. The Court directs the parties to confer no later than 1/5/24 regarding mutually agreeable dates in February 2024 and early March 2024 for the settlement conference and to jointly contact the Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Owens, via email to see if the date(s) are available for a settlement conference. Status hearing set for 1/16/24 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 12/28/2023)