Pfzctu2 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
03/23/23	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 44 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendants (Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 03/23/2023)
12/06/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (rp, ) (Entered: 12/06/2022)
12/05/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 12/5/2022.Mailed notice(mjc, ) (Entered: 12/05/2022)
12/05/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The deadline of 11/28/2022 to object to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment has come and gone (see 41 ), and no objection has been filed. Plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of default and default judgment is granted. Plaintiff asks the court to award "total profits," and, where applicable, statutory damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Some defendants appear to sell non-infringing products. Plaintiff nevertheless asserts that all money in defendants' frozen financial accounts is presumptively profits from infringement, relying principally on WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Productions Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 608 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008), which is a trademark, not a patent, case. Nonetheless, WMS Gaming is consistent with Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476, 497 (D. Minn. 1980), a design patent case, insofar as Bergstrom holds that, regarding subtracting costs from gross revenue to calculate profits from infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289: "The burden of establishing the nature and amount of these costs, as well as their relationship to the infringing product, is on the defendants." Bergstrom, 496 F. Supp. at 497 (citing Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. of Am. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 643 (5th Cir. 1959)); see also John Skenyon, Christopher Marchese & John Land, Patent Damages Law and Practice § 2:78 (Westlaw Nov. 2021 update). Accordingly, and because no defendant has appeared to rebut the presumption that the contents of defendants' financial accounts are profits from infringing activity, plaintiff's request for damages is granted. Enter default judgment. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 12/05/2022) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The deadline of 11/28/2022 to object to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment has come and gone (see 41 ), and no objection has been filed. Plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of default and default judgment is granted. Plaintiff asks the court to award "total profits," and, where applicable, statutory damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Some defendants appear to sell non-infringing products. Plaintiff nevertheless asserts that all money in defendants' frozen financial accounts is presumptively profits from infringement, relying principally on WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Productions Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 608 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008), which is a trademark, not a patent, case. Nonetheless, WMS Gaming is consistent with Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476, 497 (D. Minn. 1980), a design patent case, insofar as Bergstrom holds that, regarding subtracting costs from gross revenue to calculate profits from infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289: "The burden of establishing the nature and amount of these costs, as well as their relationship to the infringing product, is on the defendants." Bergstrom, 496 F. Supp. at 497 (citing Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. of Am. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 643 (5th Cir. 1959)); see also John Skenyon, Christopher Marchese & John Land, Patent Damages Law and Practice § 2:78 (Westlaw Nov. 2021 update). Accordingly, and because no defendant has appeared to rebut the presumption that the contents of defendants' financial accounts are profits from infringing activity, plaintiff's request for damages is granted. Enter default judgment. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 12/05/2022)
12/05/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The deadline of 11/28/2022 to object to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment has come and gone (see 41 ), and no objection has been filed. Plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of default and default judgment is granted. Plaintiff asks the court to award "total profits," and, where applicable, statutory damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 289. Some defendants appear to sell non-infringing products. Plaintiff nevertheless asserts that all money in defendants' frozen financial accounts is presumptively profits from infringement, relying principally on WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Productions Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 608 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008), which is a trademark, not a patent, case. Nonetheless, WMS Gaming is consistent with Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476, 497 (D. Minn. 1980), a design patent case, insofar as Bergstrom holds that, regarding subtracting costs from gross revenue to calculate profits from infringement under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 289: "The burden of establishing the nature and amount of these costs, as well as their relationship to the infringing product, is on the defendants." Bergstrom, 496 F. Supp. at 497 (citing Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. of Am. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 643 (5th Cir. 1959)); see also John Skenyon, Christopher Marchese & John Land, Patent Damages Law and Practice Â§ 2:78 (Westlaw Nov. 2021 update). Accordingly, and because no defendant has appeared to rebut the presumption that the contents of defendants' financial accounts are profits from infringing activity, plaintiff's request for damages is granted. Enter default judgment. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 12/05/2022) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The deadline of 11/28/2022 to object to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment has come and gone (see 41 ), and no objection has been filed. Plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of default and default judgment is granted. Plaintiff asks the court to award "total profits," and, where applicable, statutory damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 289. Some defendants appear to sell non-infringing products. Plaintiff nevertheless asserts that all money in defendants' frozen financial accounts is presumptively profits from infringement, relying principally on WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Productions Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 608 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008), which is a trademark, not a patent, case. Nonetheless, WMS Gaming is consistent with Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476, 497 (D. Minn. 1980), a design patent case, insofar as Bergstrom holds that, regarding subtracting costs from gross revenue to calculate profits from infringement under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 289: "The burden of establishing the nature and amount of these costs, as well as their relationship to the infringing product, is on the defendants." Bergstrom, 496 F. Supp. at 497 (citing Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. of Am. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 643 (5th Cir. 1959)); see also John Skenyon, Christopher Marchese & John Land, Patent Damages Law and Practice Â§ 2:78 (Westlaw Nov. 2021 update). Accordingly, and because no defendant has appeared to rebut the presumption that the contents of defendants' financial accounts are profits from infringing activity, plaintiff's request for damages is granted. Enter default judgment. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 12/05/2022)
11/16/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Moose Labs LLC regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, 41 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 11/16/2022)
11/14/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Any written response to plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of default and for entry of default judgment is due on or before November 28, 2022. The court will rule on the papers unless a hearing is requested on or before November 28, 2022. A hearing, to be conducted via teleconferencing, may be requested by sending a message to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov with a copy to all parties and attorneys who have appeared. Plaintiff is ordered to serve defendants and any affected third-party providers with a copy of this order and file a certificate of service on or before November 17, 2022. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 11/14/2022) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Any written response to plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of default and for entry of default judgment is due on or before November 28, 2022. The court will rule on the papers unless a hearing is requested on or before November 28, 2022. A hearing, to be conducted via teleconferencing, may be requested by sending a message to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov with a copy to all parties and attorneys who have appeared. Plaintiff is ordered to serve defendants and any affected third-party providers with a copy of this order and file a certificate of service on or before November 17, 2022. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 11/14/2022)
11/10/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 39 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 11/10/2022)
11/10/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by Moose Labs LLC in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 38 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 11/10/2022)
11/10/22	Moose Labs LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:22-CV-04227 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Moose Labs LLC for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Moose Labs LLC for default judgment as to all Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 11/10/2022)