Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-06-26
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-05330
状态：open
提交时间：2025-06-23 00:00:00
诉讼类型：
律所：
原告：Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 1 | 2025-06-23 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: The Court previously entered an order [6] questioning whether Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that permissive joinder of 179 Defendants in this case was proper under 35 U.S.C. §299. Plaintiff was granted leave to file either a supplemental memorandum or an amended Schedule A consistent with that ruling. In response, Plaintiff filed the Second Declaration of James E. Judge in Support of Joinder [12], arguing that joinder is proper for these 40 Defendants because they "use the same shipping address" for their products (which Plaintiff has ordered). Plaintiff presumably contends that such similarities support its conclusory allegation that Defendants' actions arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, but the Court remains unconvinced. See Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23 C 4587, 2024 WL 68332, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (finding that plaintiff's allegations that all of the defendants' online storefronts share numerous similarities, are located in China, and have a similar number of employees were insufficient to establish joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299). The shipping address Plaintiff provides appears to be for a local distribution center that does not show a sufficient link between the Defendants for joinder to be proper. Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the misjoinder here, the Court exercises its discretion to do so. Therefore, the Court dismisses Defendants 2-40 [7] without prejudice for improper joinder. This action will proceed as to Defendant 1 only. Plaintiff's motion for a TRO [10] and motion for leave to file excess pages [9] as to all Defendants are terminated as moot. Plaintiff's motion to seal [8] remains under advisement. By 6/30/25, Plaintiff may file a renewed TRO motion as to Defendant 1 [7], whose identity shall remain under seal until that date. If no further relief is sought, all previously sealed documents will be unsealed, and the Court will set case management deadlines. Last, the motion hearing set for 6/26/25 [14] is stricken, and the Court notes that 6/26/25 is listed on the Court's webpage as a date on which motions are not to be noticed for presentment. Counsel is reminded to review the Court's schedule before noticing motions for presentment. Mailed notice (gel,) |
