Lucky Me I See Trendy Store

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases--

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
05/11/23	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amounts as to certain defendants (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 05/11/2023)
03/09/23	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of $12,220 as to certain defendants (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 03/09/2023)
08/19/22	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to a certain defendant (Martin, Allyson) (Entered: 08/19/2022)
12/04/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Deckers Outdoor Corporation as to certain defendants (Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
11/13/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendants (Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered: 11/13/2020)
11/05/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 10 , motion for a temporary restraining order 20 and motion for electronic service of process 25 are granted. The plaintiffs written submissions establish that if defendants were informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, assets would likely be redirected, defeating plaintiffs interests in identifying defendants, stopping the infringement, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the submitted evidence establishes a strong likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement of plaintiffs design patent and sales into Illinois), the harm to plaintiff is irreparable and an injunction is in the public interest because infringement interferes with the property rights inherent in plaintiffs patent, including plaintiffs right to control its design. Those rights cannot be fully compensated by money damages. Although, the court notes that patent protection is unlike trademark protection designed to protect consumers from confusion about the source of a product. Plaintiffs patent interests are more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel, and the public interest in an injunction is less compelling here. Nevertheless, there is some irreparable harm 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 is an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to communicate with defendants. The court has doubts about the propriety of joinder and whether plaintiff genuinely intends to pursue an accounting (justifying an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage the court is persuaded that plaintiff has sufficient indicia of coordinated activity and prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 10 , motion for a temporary restraining order 20 and motion for electronic service of process 25 are granted. The plaintiffs written submissions establish that if defendants were informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, assets would likely be redirected, defeating plaintiffs interests in identifying defendants, stopping the infringement, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the submitted evidence establishes a strong likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement of plaintiffs design patent and sales into Illinois), the harm to plaintiff is irreparable and an injunction is in the public interest because infringement interferes with the property rights inherent in plaintiffs patent, including plaintiffs right to control its design. Those rights cannot be fully compensated by money damages. Although, the court notes that patent protection is unlike trademark protection designed to protect consumers from confusion about the source of a product. Plaintiffs patent interests are more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel, and the public interest in an injunction is less compelling here. Nevertheless, there is some irreparable harm 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 is an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to communicate with defendants. The court has doubts about the propriety of joinder and whether plaintiff genuinely intends to pursue an accounting (justifying an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage the court is persuaded that plaintiff has sufficient indicia of coordinated activity and prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify
10/27/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	MAILED patent report with certified copy of minute order dated 10/26/2020 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. (bg, ) (Entered: 10/27/2020)
10/26/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	Damages
10/26/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	Permanent Injunction
10/26/20	Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02931 ( N.D. IL )	FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 10/26/2020. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020)