|
9
|
2025/08/26 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been reassigned to the calendar of Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Plaintiff filed this patent infringement case naming 9 defendants in a Schedule A to the complaint filed under seal [2-1]. Plaintiff also filed Exhibits 1-5 to the complaint [2-2], [2-3], [2-4], [2-5], [2-6] (which include Plaintiff's patents at issue and screenshots of alleged infringing activity) and exhibits to the motion for a TRO (which include the declaration of David Scholtz and another version of the Schedule A) [6], [6-1], [6-2] under seal. Currently pending before this Court are Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and other relief [4] and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file documents under seal [7], neither of which were noticed for presentment in accordance with this Court's case management procedures. Counsel is reminded to review and comply with all court procedures. For future reference, non-compliant motions may be summarily stricken. First, the Court is unconvinced that "these commonplace efforts in Schedule A cases to obtain secret relief comport with principles of procedural due process." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.) As an initial matter, these infringement cases rarely present exceptional circumstances that would justify sealing the names of all defendants and documents pertaining to their alleged infringing activity, even temporarily. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect right holders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." Id. More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). It is not enough that alleged counterfeiters might quickly shut down the online store and move money if alerted to the fact that they are being sued. Due process still affords them the right to receive notice and a chance to present a defense before restraining all of their assets based solely on one-sided documentary evidence from Plaintiff. Absent a detailed explanation to establish good cause for sealing in accordance with Local Rule 26.2 and Seventh Circuit precedent which has not been provided here sealing is not appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal [7] is denied, and the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the documents at [2-1], [2-2], [2-3], [2-4], [2-5], [2-6], [6-1], and [6-2]. Turning to Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary retraining order and other relief, Plaintiff also seeks a temporary injunction, temporary asset restraint, expedited discovery, and foreign alternative service [4]. Upon review of the filings, Plaintiff has not come close to meeting the exacting standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to warrant such ex parte relief. Plaintiff failed to submit a single supporting affidavit with "specific facts" to "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result" along with a certification from counsel. That alone is reason to deny this extraordinary request. See Eicher Motors Ltd., 2025 WL 2299593 at *4-7. The combined motion [4] is denied without prejudice. Finally, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 9 defendants under 35 U.S.C. � 299. Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations on "information and belief" about coordinated counterfeiting activity between defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 9/8/25, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Mailed notice (gel,)
|
|
|
2025/08/01 |
CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.
|