WY-9 Store Co

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
01/07/22	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendant (Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
01/07/22	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendant (Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
01/07/22	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendant (Christensen, Jake) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
11/05/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 12 , motion for a temporary restraining order 22 and motion for electronic service of process 27 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. The harm to plaintiffs patent rights may be more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel. Patent protection is not intended to address public perception of the source of goods; consumer confusion is a less weighty concern 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 defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to app MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 12 , motion for a temporary restraining order 22 and motion for electronic service of process 27 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. The harm to plaintiffs patent rights may be more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel. Patent protection is not intended to address public perception of the source of goods; consumer confusion is a less weighty concern 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 defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to app
11/05/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 12 , motion for a temporary restraining order 22 and motion for electronic service of process 27 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. The harm to plaintiffs patent rights may be more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel. Patent protection is not intended to address public perception of the source of goods; consumer confusion is a less weighty concern 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 defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to app MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 12 , motion for a temporary restraining order 22 and motion for electronic service of process 27 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. The harm to plaintiffs patent rights may be more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel. Patent protection is not intended to address public perception of the source of goods; consumer confusion is a less weighty concern 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 defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to app
11/05/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 12 , motion for a temporary restraining order 22 and motion for electronic service of process 27 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. The harm to plaintiffs patent rights may be more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel. Patent protection is not intended to address public perception of the source of goods; consumer confusion is a less weighty concern 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 defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to app MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs ex parte motion to seal 12 , motion for a temporary restraining order 22 and motion for electronic service of process 27 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. The harm to plaintiffs patent rights may be more compensable through damages than in other similar trademark cases brought by counsel. Patent protection is not intended to address public perception of the source of goods; consumer confusion is a less weighty concern 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 defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to app
10/26/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: No defendant has appeared to object to plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment. The motion is granted. Although the information about defendants profits and revenues is sparse and there is the possibility that the restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales, the court concludes that plaintiffs efforts provide the best available measure of profits. Defendants failure to appear and the evidence submitted in support of the TRO demonstrate that a permanent injunction is appropriate. Enter Default Judgment Order and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: No defendant has appeared to object to plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment. The motion is granted. Although the information about defendants profits and revenues is sparse and there is the possibility that the restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales, the court concludes that plaintiffs efforts provide the best available measure of profits. Defendants failure to appear and the evidence submitted in support of the TRO demonstrate that a permanent injunction is appropriate. Enter Default Judgment Order and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020)
10/26/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: No defendant has appeared to object to plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment. The motion is granted. Although the information about defendants profits and revenues is sparse and there is the possibility that the restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales, the court concludes that plaintiffs efforts provide the best available measure of profits. Defendants failure to appear and the evidence submitted in support of the TRO demonstrate that a permanent injunction is appropriate. Enter Default Judgment Order and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: No defendant has appeared to object to plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment. The motion is granted. Although the information about defendants profits and revenues is sparse and there is the possibility that the restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales, the court concludes that plaintiffs efforts provide the best available measure of profits. Defendants failure to appear and the evidence submitted in support of the TRO demonstrate that a permanent injunction is appropriate. Enter Default Judgment Order and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020)
10/26/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: No defendant has appeared to object to plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment. The motion is granted. Although the information about defendants profits and revenues is sparse and there is the possibility that the restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales, the court concludes that plaintiffs efforts provide the best available measure of profits. Defendants failure to appear and the evidence submitted in support of the TRO demonstrate that a permanent injunction is appropriate. Enter Default Judgment Order and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: No defendant has appeared to object to plaintiffs motion for entry of default judgment. The motion is granted. Although the information about defendants profits and revenues is sparse and there is the possibility that the restrained funds were generated by non-infringing sales, the court concludes that plaintiffs efforts provide the best available measure of profits. Defendants failure to appear and the evidence submitted in support of the TRO demonstrate that a permanent injunction is appropriate. Enter Default Judgment Order and terminate civil case. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2020)
10/26/20	Oakley Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:20-CV-02970 ( N.D. IL )	Damages