Okshopping

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
11/15/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This is a "Schedule A" case, which is a type of lawsuit typically filed against a group of sellers whose assumed names are listed on an attachment to the complaint, usually called "Schedule A." Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated, 2021 WL 308882, at 1 (N.D. Ill. January 30, 2021). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants. R. 225, Mot. Default; R. 226, Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [225] without prejudice for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to a reasonable royalty of $10,000 plus 10% of defaulting Defendants sales of unauthorized products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In support of the $10,000 licensing fee, Plaintiff cites to the Declaration of Sason Gabay. Decl. Gabay 8. However, Plaintiff does not explain its calculation of the 10% of defaulting Defendants' sales of unauthorized products. Instead, Plaintiff includes a table with a column titled "10% Royalty of Sales by Defendant" without explanation, citation, or supporting documentation. Memo. at 11-12. Further, by the title of the column, it appears that Plaintiff is including all sales by the Defaulting Defendant, and it is not limited to only sales of the authorized products. Second, Plaintiff requests transaction costs, and cites one out-of-district case supporting this request, while maintaining that "courts have routinely held that a hypothetical license negotiation would have required transaction costs, which would be paid by the Defaulting Defendants." Id. at 9. However, Plaintiff does not support this request with any in-district case law or additional supporting authority, or describe how it arrived at the $5,000 per Defaulting Defendant transaction cost amount. Instead, Plaintiff cites to the amount of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Id. (citing Decl. Lee 9). It does not follow that a hypothetical license negotiation estimate would be the amount of the attorney's fees incurred in this case, which involves prosecuting alleged patent infringement. Finally, Plaintiff requests treble damages for each Defaulting Defendant. Memo. at 9. True, enhanced damages up to three times the amount are allowed under Section 284, but the Court is not convinced such enhanced damages are necessarily appropriate here. Based on the Court's review of the two cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, both cases were out-of-district, and none concerned Schedule A patent infringement cases. In any renewed default motion, Plaintiff must support its request for each category of damages with supporting authority, and to explain its methodology and calculation of the royalty of sales per each Defaulting Defendant, with supporting documentation. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits for the unauthorized sales, any renewed motion must further support the basis for the request for enhanced damages and cite other patent "Schedule A" cases from this District, in which the court has awarded enhanced damages. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/15/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This is a "Schedule A" case, which is a type of lawsuit typically filed against a group of sellers whose assumed names are listed on an attachment to the complaint, usually called "Schedule A." Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated, 2021 WL 308882, at 1 (N.D. Ill. January 30, 2021). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants. R. 225, Mot. Default; R. 226, Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [225] without prejudice for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to a reasonable royalty of $10,000 plus 10% of defaulting Defendants sales of unauthorized products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In support of the $10,000 licensing fee, Plaintiff cites to the Declaration of Sason Gabay. Decl. Gabay 8. However, Plaintiff does not explain its calculation of the 10% of defaulting Defendants' sales of unauthorized products. Instead, Plaintiff includes a table with a column titled "10% Royalty of Sales by Defendant" without explanation, citation, or supporting documentation. Memo. at 11-12. Further, by the title of the column, it appears that Plaintiff is including all sales by the Defaulting Defendant, and it is not limited to only sales of the authorized products. Second, Plaintiff requests transaction costs, and cites one out-of-district case supporting this request, while maintaining that "courts have routinely held that a hypothetical license negotiation would have required transaction costs, which would be paid by the Defaulting Defendants." Id. at 9. However, Plaintiff does not support this request with any in-district case law or additional supporting authority, or describe how it arrived at the $5,000 per Defaulting Defendant transaction cost amount. Instead, Plaintiff cites to the amount of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Id. (citing Decl. Lee 9). It does not follow that a hypothetical license negotiation estimate would be the amount of the attorney's fees incurred in this case, which involves prosecuting alleged patent infringement. Finally, Plaintiff requests treble damages for each Defaulting Defendant. Memo. at 9. True, enhanced damages up to three times the amount are allowed under Section 284, but the Court is not convinced such enhanced damages are necessarily appropriate here. Based on the Court's review of the two cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, both cases were out-of-district, and none concerned Schedule A patent infringement cases. In any renewed default motion, Plaintiff must support its request for each category of damages with supporting authority, and to explain its methodology and calculation of the royalty of sales per each Defaulting Defendant, with supporting documentation. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits for the unauthorized sales, any renewed motion must further support the basis for the request for enhanced damages and cite other patent "Schedule A" cases from this District, in which the court has awarded enhanced damages. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/15/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	STATUS Report by Pathway IP LLC Presented before District Judge (Haque, Sameeul) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/14/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Defendant Lanyuantai's status report regarding motion to recover damages for Plaintiff's wrongful TRO [231] . For the reasons stated in the status report, Defendant Lanyuantai's motion [227] is terminated as moot. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/14/2024)
11/12/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	STATUS Report REGARDING MOTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PLAINTIFFS WRONGFUL TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF 227) by Lanyuantai Presented before District Judge (Konieczny, Daniel) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
11/08/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 11/8/2024. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
11/08/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons in the attached Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct's Amended Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Improper Joinder [105] . Enter Order. Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct have been misjoined in this action, and the claims against those Defendants are severed from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case as to Defendant Luxsure-US and Defendant Yarrashop Direct and to assign such action to this Court. Pathway is required to pay the filing fee. Based on this ruling, by November 15, 2024 the Court orders Pathway to file a status report as to whether it will be proceeding as to the remaining Defendants in one action or grouping Defendants in separate actions. Based on that status report, the Court will set new deadlines for an Amended Complaint in this original action, and any severed actions. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/08/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons in the attached Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct's Amended Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Improper Joinder [105] . Enter Order. Defendants Luxsure-US and Yarrashop Direct have been misjoined in this action, and the claims against those Defendants are severed from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case as to Defendant Luxsure-US and Defendant Yarrashop Direct and to assign such action to this Court. Pathway is required to pay the filing fee. Based on this ruling, by November 15, 2024 the Court orders Pathway to file a status report as to whether it will be proceeding as to the remaining Defendants in one action or grouping Defendants in separate actions. Based on that status report, the Court will set new deadlines for an Amended Complaint in this original action, and any severed actions. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
11/08/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Defendant Lanyuantai's motion to recover damages for wrongful temporary restraining order [227] . Plaintiff may file a response, limited to four pages, by 11/12/2024. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
11/06/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Defendant Lanyuantai TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Presented before District Judge (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1)(Konieczny, Daniel) (Entered: 11/06/2024)
11/05/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by Pathway IP LLC in support of motion for entry of default,, motion for default judgment, [225] (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of Nicholas S. Lee, # [2] Declaration of Sason Gabay)(Haque, Sameeul) (Entered: 11/05/2024)
11/05/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Pathway IP LLC for entry of default Presented before District Judge , MOTION by Plaintiff Pathway IP LLC for default judgment as to Defendants listed in Exhibit A Presented before District Judge (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A)(Haque, Sameeul) (Entered: 11/05/2024)