Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents9

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
10/28/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Limited, Shenzhen (CN) Memorandum Establishing Joinder is Proper (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1 of Memorandum)(Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 10/28/2024)
10/08/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	NOTICE of Correction regarding text entry, [17] (jxm, ) (Entered: 10/08/2024)
10/07/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of Amended Schedule A, R. 15-1, the Court raises the propriety of joinder of the 89 Defendants. The Plaintiff shall review the opinion in Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, Case No. 19-cv-7878, 2020 WL 433870 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020), and file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder by 10/28/2024. In lieu of the supplemental memorandum, by the same deadline, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with (a) one defendant or (b) a subset of the defendants along with a memo explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a tracking status hearing is set for 11/08/2024 at 8:30 a.m. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/07/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of Amended Schedule A, R. 15-1, the Court raises the propriety of joinder of the 89 Defendants. The Plaintiff shall review the opinion in Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, Case No. 19-cv-7878, 2020 WL 433870 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020), and file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder by 10/28/2024. In lieu of the supplemental memorandum, by the same deadline, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with (a) one defendant or (b) a subset of the defendants along with a memo explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a tracking status hearing is set for 11/08/2024 at 8:30 a.m. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
10/04/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang for all further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Mailed notice (Attachments: # [1] Request for Reassignment) (jxm, ) (Main Document 17 replaced on 10/8/2024) (jxm, ). Modified on 10/8/2024 (jxm, ). (Entered: 10/04/2024)
10/01/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Upon review of the plaintiff's memorandum in support of its renewed motion for a temporary restraining order [15] , the Court recommends to the Executive Committee that this case be returned to the calendar of Judge Chang pursuant to Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Although the civil cover sheet [5] indicates that this is not a previously dismissed case, the plaintiff's memorandum candidly acknowledges that the defendants in this suit were all named in a previously filed action (1:24-cv-05527) which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed. Pursuant to LR 40.3(b)(2), this action should therefore have been directly assigned to Judge Chang. The refiling of this case with a misrepresentation on the civil cover sheet [5] , perhaps to secure the assignment of a different judge, is forum shopping and should not be permitted under the rules of this Court. (air, ) (Entered: 10/01/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Upon review of the plaintiff's memorandum in support of its renewed motion for a temporary restraining order [15] , the Court recommends to the Executive Committee that this case be returned to the calendar of Judge Chang pursuant to Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Although the civil cover sheet [5] indicates that this is not a previously dismissed case, the plaintiff's memorandum candidly acknowledges that the defendants in this suit were all named in a previously filed action (1:24-cv-05527) which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed. Pursuant to LR 40.3(b)(2), this action should therefore have been directly assigned to Judge Chang. The refiling of this case with a misrepresentation on the civil cover sheet [5] , perhaps to secure the assignment of a different judge, is forum shopping and should not be permitted under the rules of this Court. (air, ) (Entered: 10/01/2024)
09/27/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MEMORANDUM by Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Limited, Shenzhen (CN) in support of motion for temporary restraining order [14] and expedited discovery (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit Amended Schedule A, # [2] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 1, # [3] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 2, # [4] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 3, # [5] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 4, # [6] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 5, # [7] Exhibit Infringed Patent List, # [8] Exhibit Prior Complaint 5527, # [9] Exhibit Schedule A 5527)(Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/27/2024) MEMORANDUM by Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Limited, Shenzhen (CN) in support of motion for temporary restraining order [14] and expedited discovery (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit Amended Schedule A, # [2] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 1, # [3] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 2, # [4] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 3, # [5] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 4, # [6] Exhibit Amended Schedule B part 5, # [7] Exhibit Infringed Patent List, # [8] Exhibit Prior Complaint 5527, # [9] Exhibit Schedule A 5527)(Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/27/2024)
09/27/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Limited, Shenzhen (CN) for temporary restraining order and expedited discovery (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/27/2024)
09/03/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [9] is denied without prejudice for several reasons. First, the Court notes that not all screenshots provided in support of the motion contain date and time information, and not all screenshots indicate that the seller is capable of shipping to Illinois. Page 86 of docket entry [11-4], for example, indicates that the product is "[c]urrently unavailable." To obtain injunctive relief, the plaintiff must file an updated declaration with the requisite date, time, and shipping information for each seller. Second, under ABC Corp. I v. Schedule A, the Court is "required to conduct the ordinary observer test through the lens of the prior art" in deciding whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief in a design-patent infringement action. 52 F.4th 934, 942-43. Accordingly, to obtain injunctive relief based on a design patent, the plaintiff must submit documents that (1) specify which design patent, if any, each defendant is accused of infringing, (2) analyze which ornamental components are shared between the accused product and the asserted design patent, and (3) analyze which of those shared features are not present in the prior art. This requires a product-by-product analysis. In other words, the plaintiff must provide, for each of the accused defendants' allegedly infringing products, an analysis of which components are shared or not shared with specified design patents as well as with the prior art. Third, the plaintiff is required to supplement its motion with a listing of all prior online trademark, copyright, or patent infringement cases (also known as "Schedule A" cases) filed in any court in the United States in which it was a plaintiff, a listing of any of the defendants included in the Schedule A in this case that the plaintiff has previously named as a defendant in any prior complaint or Schedule A case, and a certification that the plaintiff has not used any of the screenshot evidence supplied in support or its motion (or renewed motion) in any prior proceeding. Fourth, it is not clear that the plaintiff is entitled to an asset restraint in this suit. ABC Prods. v. Schedule A, No. 23-cv-04131, 2024 WL 1549784, at 6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2024) (suit for patent infringement "does not provide for the equitable relief of accounting and profits"); see also Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 18-cv-00403, 2018 WL 2244461, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018) (complaint must seek equitable relief "in relation to specific funds" (quotation marks omitted)). The plaintiff may file a renewed motion correcting these issues and/or adjusting the relief sought by 9/27/24. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 09/03/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [9] is denied without prejudice for several reasons. First, the Court notes that not all screenshots provided in support of the motion contain date and time information, and not all screenshots indicate that the seller is capable of shipping to Illinois. Page 86 of docket entry [11-4], for example, indicates that the product is "[c]urrently unavailable." To obtain injunctive relief, the plaintiff must file an updated declaration with the requisite date, time, and shipping information for each seller. Second, under ABC Corp. I v. Schedule A, the Court is "required to conduct the ordinary observer test through the lens of the prior art" in deciding whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief in a design-patent infringement action. 52 F.4th 934, 942-43. Accordingly, to obtain injunctive relief based on a design patent, the plaintiff must submit documents that (1) specify which design patent, if any, each defendant is accused of infringing, (2) analyze which ornamental components are shared between the accused product and the asserted design patent, and (3) analyze which of those shared features are not present in the prior art. This requires a product-by-product analysis. In other words, the plaintiff must provide, for each of the accused defendants' allegedly infringing products, an analysis of which components are shared or not shared with specified design patents as well as with the prior art. Third, the plaintiff is required to supplement its motion with a listing of all prior online trademark, copyright, or patent infringement cases (also known as "Schedule A" cases) filed in any court in the United States in which it was a plaintiff, a listing of any of the defendants included in the Schedule A in this case that the plaintiff has previously named as a defendant in any prior complaint or Schedule A case, and a certification that the plaintiff has not used any of the screenshot evidence supplied in support or its motion (or renewed motion) in any prior proceeding. Fourth, it is not clear that the plaintiff is entitled to an asset restraint in this suit. ABC Prods. v. Schedule A, No. 23-cv-04131, 2024 WL 1549784, at 6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2024) (suit for patent infringement "does not provide for the equitable relief of accounting and profits"); see also Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 18-cv-00403, 2018 WL 2244461, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018) (complaint must seek equitable relief "in relation to specific funds" (quotation marks omitted)). The plaintiff may file a renewed motion correcting these issues and/or adjusting the relief sought by 9/27/24. Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 09/03/2024)
09/02/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Limited, Shenzhen (CN) for temporary restraining order and expedited discovery (Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/02/2024)
09/02/24	Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Ltd Shenzhe CN v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-07649 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Super Top Innovation Technology Limited, Shenzhen (CN)Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3) (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of Zhiwei Hua in Support of Motion for Electronic Service, # [2] Exhibit 1 of Hua's Declaration, # [3] Exhibit 2 of Hua's Declaration)(Hua, Zhiwei) (Entered: 09/02/2024)