Jingdong E Commerce (Trade) Hong Kong Corporation LTD

General

Total Cases3

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsN.D. Illinois D. Connecticut

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
08/13/24	Domesick v. JD E Commerce America Ltd 3:23-CV-00590 ( D. CT )	ORDER. Plaintiff has moved for default judgment against Defendants Centune Toon Inc., Htpoil Holding Trade Co., Ltd., Inno Products Mall Inc., and Li Ma ("Defendants"). ECF No. 90. This motion is DENIED without prejudice because Plaintiff has not established that the Court has personal jurisdiction over these defendants. Before a district court grants a motion for default judgment, it should "assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 213 (2d Cir. 2010). "There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general." Sonera Holding B.V. v. ukurova Holding A.., 750 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2014). General jurisdiction is not at issue here because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants' "contacts with [Connecticut] are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State." Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Specific jurisdiction is asserted "[w]here [the] claim arises out of, or relates to, [an out-of-state] defendant's contacts with the forum." Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2013). In such cases, there must be "a connection between the forum exercising jurisdiction over the defendant and the underlying controversy that gave rise to the claim." Alcon Lab'ys, Inc. v. Allied Vision Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-02486, 2018 WL 10550777, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2018). Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution must both be satisfied. See Bensmiller v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 47 F.3d 79, 81 (2nd Cir. 1995). Due process requires that the defendant "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are two methods by which an out-of-state defendant may establish minimum contacts with the forum state: "(1) 'purposeful availment,' in which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state and could foresee being haled into court there; and (2) 'purposeful direction,' also known as the 'effects test,' which establishes personal jurisdiction when the conduct that forms the basis for the controversy occurs entirely out-of-forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are therefore in-forum effects harmful to the plaintiff. The 'effects test' generally requires that plaintiffs show that the defendants' conduct was intentional and expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that substantial injury would be felt there." In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., 420 F. Supp. 3d 219, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Defendants are all out-of-state residents. ECF No. 70 at 2-3. Plaintiff contends that they are subject to the Court's jurisdiction because they "have established sufficient minimum contacts with Connecticut" through their use of Walmarts online platform and because they "knowingly and intentionally engaged in actions that target this District, including the distribution of infringing planking devices." ECF No. 91 at 6. An out-of-state defendant's online activity can give rise to personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding personal jurisdiction over an international defendant who "targeted its promotional materials specifically towards the United States"); Alcon Lab'ys, Inc., 2018 WL 10550777, at 10 ("Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the New York forum by shipping products [from online sales] to New York, advertising and selling products through an interactive website accessible from New York, and circulating advertisements in New York periodicals published by New York-based publishers."). But Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts for the Court to find that Defendants established minimum contacts with Connecticut. Though he notes that the Walmart platform "offers location-specific features targeting Connecticut residents [and] allows its vendors to make use of [Walmart's] substantial physical presence in the state for functions like in-store returns," he does not explain how, exactly, the particular defendants against whom he seeks a default judgment made use of these features in a way that shows they satisfy Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. ECF No. 91 at 6. He may renew his motion for default judgment by providing any additional evidence he has regarding these defendants' contact with Connecticut and an explanation of how such evidence demonstrates that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants that are the subject of his motion. Any renewed motion, together with any accompanying evidence, must be filed by September 13, 2024. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/13/2024. (Bender, Sarah) (Entered: 08/13/2024) ORDER. Plaintiff has moved for default judgment against Defendants Centune Toon Inc., Htpoil Holding Trade Co., Ltd., Inno Products Mall Inc., and Li Ma ("Defendants"). ECF No. 90. This motion is DENIED without prejudice because Plaintiff has not established that the Court has personal jurisdiction over these defendants. Before a district court grants a motion for default judgment, it should "assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 213 (2d Cir. 2010). "There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general." Sonera Holding B.V. v. ukurova Holding A.., 750 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2014). General jurisdiction is not at issue here because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants' "contacts with [Connecticut] are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State." Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Specific jurisdiction is asserted "[w]here [the] claim arises out of, or relates to, [an out-of-state] defendant's contacts with the forum." Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2013). In such cases, there must be "a connection between the forum exercising jurisdiction over the defendant and the underlying controversy that gave rise to the claim." Alcon Lab'ys, Inc. v. Allied Vision Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-02486, 2018 WL 10550777, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2018). Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution must both be satisfied. See Bensmiller v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 47 F.3d 79, 81 (2nd Cir. 1995). Due process requires that the defendant "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are two methods by which an out-of-state defendant may establish minimum contacts with the forum state: "(1) 'purposeful availment,' in which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state and could foresee being haled into court there; and (2) 'purposeful direction,' also known as the 'effects test,' which establishes personal jurisdiction when the conduct that forms the basis for the controversy occurs entirely out-of-forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are therefore in-forum effects harmful to the plaintiff. The 'effects test' generally requires that plaintiffs show that the defendants' conduct was intentional and expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that substantial injury would be felt there." In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., 420 F. Supp. 3d 219, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Defendants are all out-of-state residents. ECF No. 70 at 2-3. Plaintiff contends that they are subject to the Court's jurisdiction because they "have established sufficient minimum contacts with Connecticut" through their use of Walmarts online platform and because they "knowingly and intentionally engaged in actions that target this District, including the distribution of infringing planking devices." ECF No. 91 at 6. An out-of-state defendant's online activity can give rise to personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding personal jurisdiction over an international defendant who "targeted its promotional materials specifically towards the United States"); Alcon Lab'ys, Inc., 2018 WL 10550777, at 10 ("Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the New York forum by shipping products [from online sales] to New York, advertising and selling products through an interactive website accessible from New York, and circulating advertisements in New York periodicals published by New York-based publishers."). But Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts for the Court to find that Defendants established minimum contacts with Connecticut. Though he notes that the Walmart platform "offers location-specific features targeting Connecticut residents [and] allows its vendors to make use of [Walmart's] substantial physical presence in the state for functions like in-store returns," he does not explain how, exactly, the particular defendants against whom he seeks a default judgment made use of these features in a way that shows they satisfy Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. ECF No. 91 at 6. He may renew his motion for default judgment by providing any additional evidence he has regarding these defendants' contact with Connecticut and an explanation of how such evidence demonstrates that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants that are the subject of his motion. Any renewed motion, together with any accompanying evidence, must be filed by September 13, 2024. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/13/2024. (Bender, Sarah) (Entered: 08/13/2024)
08/13/24	Domesick v. JD E Commerce America Ltd 3:23-CV-00590 ( D. CT )	ORDER. Plaintiff has moved for default judgment against Defendants Centune Toon Inc., Htpoil Holding Trade Co., Ltd., Inno Products Mall Inc., and Li Ma ("Defendants"). ECF No. 90. This motion is DENIED without prejudice because Plaintiff has not established that the Court has personal jurisdiction over these defendants. Before a district court grants a motion for default judgment, it should "assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 213 (2d Cir. 2010). "There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general." Sonera Holding B.V. v. ukurova Holding A.., 750 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2014). General jurisdiction is not at issue here because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants' "contacts with [Connecticut] are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State." Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Specific jurisdiction is asserted "[w]here [the] claim arises out of, or relates to, [an out-of-state] defendant's contacts with the forum." Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2013). In such cases, there must be "a connection between the forum exercising jurisdiction over the defendant and the underlying controversy that gave rise to the claim." Alcon Lab'ys, Inc. v. Allied Vision Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-02486, 2018 WL 10550777, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2018). Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution must both be satisfied. See Bensmiller v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 47 F.3d 79, 81 (2nd Cir. 1995). Due process requires that the defendant "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are two methods by which an out-of-state defendant may establish minimum contacts with the forum state: "(1) 'purposeful availment,' in which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state and could foresee being haled into court there; and (2) 'purposeful direction,' also known as the 'effects test,' which establishes personal jurisdiction when the conduct that forms the basis for the controversy occurs entirely out-of-forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are therefore in-forum effects harmful to the plaintiff. The 'effects test' generally requires that plaintiffs show that the defendants' conduct was intentional and expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that substantial injury would be felt there." In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., 420 F. Supp. 3d 219, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Defendants are all out-of-state residents. ECF No. 70 at 2-3. Plaintiff contends that they are subject to the Court's jurisdiction because they "have established sufficient minimum contacts with Connecticut" through their use of Walmarts online platform and because they "knowingly and intentionally engaged in actions that target this District, including the distribution of infringing planking devices." ECF No. 91 at 6. An out-of-state defendant's online activity can give rise to personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding personal jurisdiction over an international defendant who "targeted its promotional materials specifically towards the United States"); Alcon Lab'ys, Inc., 2018 WL 10550777, at 10 ("Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the New York forum by shipping products [from online sales] to New York, advertising and selling products through an interactive website accessible from New York, and circulating advertisements in New York periodicals published by New York-based publishers."). But Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts for the Court to find that Defendants established minimum contacts with Connecticut. Though he notes that the Walmart platform "offers location-specific features targeting Connecticut residents [and] allows its vendors to make use of [Walmart's] substantial physical presence in the state for functions like in-store returns," he does not explain how, exactly, the particular defendants against whom he seeks a default judgment made use of these features in a way that shows they satisfy Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. ECF No. 91 at 6. He may renew his motion for default judgment by providing any additional evidence he has regarding these defendants' contact with Connecticut and an explanation of how such evidence demonstrates that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants that are the subject of his motion. Any renewed motion, together with any accompanying evidence, must be filed by September 13, 2024. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/13/2024. (Bender, Sarah) (Entered: 08/13/2024) ORDER. Plaintiff has moved for default judgment against Defendants Centune Toon Inc., Htpoil Holding Trade Co., Ltd., Inno Products Mall Inc., and Li Ma ("Defendants"). ECF No. 90. This motion is DENIED without prejudice because Plaintiff has not established that the Court has personal jurisdiction over these defendants. Before a district court grants a motion for default judgment, it should "assure itself that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 213 (2d Cir. 2010). "There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general." Sonera Holding B.V. v. ukurova Holding A.., 750 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2014). General jurisdiction is not at issue here because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants' "contacts with [Connecticut] are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State." Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Specific jurisdiction is asserted "[w]here [the] claim arises out of, or relates to, [an out-of-state] defendant's contacts with the forum." Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2013). In such cases, there must be "a connection between the forum exercising jurisdiction over the defendant and the underlying controversy that gave rise to the claim." Alcon Lab'ys, Inc. v. Allied Vision Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-02486, 2018 WL 10550777, at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2018). Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution must both be satisfied. See Bensmiller v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 47 F.3d 79, 81 (2nd Cir. 1995). Due process requires that the defendant "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are two methods by which an out-of-state defendant may establish minimum contacts with the forum state: "(1) 'purposeful availment,' in which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state and could foresee being haled into court there; and (2) 'purposeful direction,' also known as the 'effects test,' which establishes personal jurisdiction when the conduct that forms the basis for the controversy occurs entirely out-of-forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are therefore in-forum effects harmful to the plaintiff. The 'effects test' generally requires that plaintiffs show that the defendants' conduct was intentional and expressly aimed at the forum state with the knowledge that substantial injury would be felt there." In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., 420 F. Supp. 3d 219, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Defendants are all out-of-state residents. ECF No. 70 at 2-3. Plaintiff contends that they are subject to the Court's jurisdiction because they "have established sufficient minimum contacts with Connecticut" through their use of Walmarts online platform and because they "knowingly and intentionally engaged in actions that target this District, including the distribution of infringing planking devices." ECF No. 91 at 6. An out-of-state defendant's online activity can give rise to personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding personal jurisdiction over an international defendant who "targeted its promotional materials specifically towards the United States"); Alcon Lab'ys, Inc., 2018 WL 10550777, at 10 ("Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the New York forum by shipping products [from online sales] to New York, advertising and selling products through an interactive website accessible from New York, and circulating advertisements in New York periodicals published by New York-based publishers."). But Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts for the Court to find that Defendants established minimum contacts with Connecticut. Though he notes that the Walmart platform "offers location-specific features targeting Connecticut residents [and] allows its vendors to make use of [Walmart's] substantial physical presence in the state for functions like in-store returns," he does not explain how, exactly, the particular defendants against whom he seeks a default judgment made use of these features in a way that shows they satisfy Connecticut's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. ECF No. 91 at 6. He may renew his motion for default judgment by providing any additional evidence he has regarding these defendants' contact with Connecticut and an explanation of how such evidence demonstrates that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants that are the subject of his motion. Any renewed motion, together with any accompanying evidence, must be filed by September 13, 2024. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/13/2024. (Bender, Sarah) (Entered: 08/13/2024)
05/15/24	Domesick v. JD E Commerce America Ltd 3:23-CV-00590 ( D. CT )	ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Defendant Jaybally, Inc. As such, the Court DISMISSES this Defendant. The Clerks is instructed to terminate Defendant Jaybally, Inc as a Defendant. Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 5/15/2024. (Bassali, D) (Entered: 05/15/2024)
05/15/24	Domesick v. JD E Commerce America Ltd 3:23-CV-00590 ( D. CT )	ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Defendant Jaybally, Inc. As such, the Court DISMISSES this Defendant. The Clerks is instructed to terminate Defendant Jaybally, Inc as a Defendant. Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 5/15/2024. (Bassali, D) (Entered: 05/15/2024)
04/19/24	Domesick v. JD E Commerce America Ltd 3:23-CV-00590 ( D. CT )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Jaybally, Inc. by Michael Domesick (Domesick, Michael) (Entered: 04/19/2024)
04/04/24	The Schedule A 1:22-CV-02024 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Telephone status hearing held on 4/4/2024. Plaintiff's oral motion to voluntarily dismiss the case is granted. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 04/04/2024)
03/15/24	The Schedule A 1:22-CV-02024 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: A telephone status hearing is set for 4/4/2024 at 9:00 a.m., unless the case is dismissed before then. To join the telephone conference, dial (650) 479-3207, Access Code 180 815 7648. Throughout the hearing, each speaker will be expected to identify themselves for the record before speaking. Counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line. Please be sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. 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. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/15/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: A telephone status hearing is set for 4/4/2024 at 9:00 a.m., unless the case is dismissed before then. To join the telephone conference, dial (650) 479-3207, Access Code 180 815 7648. Throughout the hearing, each speaker will be expected to identify themselves for the record before speaking. Counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line. Please be sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. 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. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/15/2024)
03/15/24	The Schedule A 1:22-CV-02024 ( N.D. IL )	DEFAULT Judgment Order. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 3/15/2024. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/15/2024)
03/14/24	The Schedule A 1:22-CV-02024 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by LIANGQING Li, XIAOBING Wang for #413 Zhihui Chuangxiang, #414 Shenzhen Tongtuo Technology Ltd., and #417 Ningbo Saituo Internet Technology Ltd. (Karamanis, James) (Entered: 03/14/2024)
03/07/24	The Schedule A 1:22-CV-02024 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion hearing held on 3/7/2024. No one appeared on behalf of defendants. Motion for default judgment as to all remaining Defendants who have not appeared 99 is granted, excluding Defendant #226 donroyj. Plaintiff's counsel is to send a proposed default judgment order to Judge Durkin's proposed order inbox. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/07/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion hearing held on 3/7/2024. No one appeared on behalf of defendants. Motion for default judgment as to all remaining Defendants who have not appeared 99 is granted, excluding Defendant #226 donroyj. Plaintiff's counsel is to send a proposed default judgment order to Judge Durkin's proposed order inbox. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/07/2024)