MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder [12] and determines, within its discretion, that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of 93 defendants is proper in this patent infringement case. 35 U.S.C. � 299 governs joinder in patent cases and provides, in relevant part: "[P]arties that are accused [patent] infringers may be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, only if (1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action." 35 U.S.C. � 299(a). Joinder is improper where "accused infringers" are joined "based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit." Id. � 299(b). Claims against different defendants arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences when "there is a 'logical relationship' between them." Tang v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 68332, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Such a relationship "requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that its claims against all defendants may be properly joined in the same case in accordance with Section 299's same transaction-or-occurrence test. Plaintiff's claim that the defendants are selling the same product as plaintiff's product is insufficient as "a claim that the defendants infringed on [the plaintiff's] design patent in the same way. is not sufficient to link one defendant's infringement to another as part of 'the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences'" under � 299. Tang, 2024 WL 68332, at *2 (quoting 35 U.S.C. � 299(a)); Este Lauder Cosmetics, Ltd. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 187 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ("[C]ommitting the same type of violation in the same way does not link defendants together for the purpose of joinder.") (quoting AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1508, 752 F.3d 990, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). For the same reasons, joinder is also improper under Rule 20. Even if the Court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, the Court exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1103 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Co., P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021) (noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense."). Accordingly, the Court dismisses defendant Nos. 2-93 without prejudice. The case will proceed against defendant No. 1. If plaintiff files a new action against defendants Nos. 2-93, plaintiff shall indicate on the Civil Cover Sheet that the filed case is related to this matter. See Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [8] is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to seal [10] is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Order by 10/29/2025. Mailed notice
7
10/14/2025
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [10] and plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [8] are entered and continued. Upon review of the amended complaint and the TRO submissions, the Court sua sponte raises the proprietary of joinder of 93 defendants in this case. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). By 10/20/2025, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described in Estee Lauder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint with a single defendant or a smaller subset of defendants along with its memorandum explaining specifically why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189. Mailed notice
6
10/14/2025
MOTION by Plaintiff Bo Hu to seal Certain Documents Containing Identifying Information About the Defendants (Renewed)
5
10/14/2025
AMENDED complaint by Bo Hu against The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A and terminating John Doe (REDACTED)
4
10/14/2025
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Bo Hu EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Memorandum in Support of TRO, # (2) Affidavit /Declaration of Bo Hu, # (3) Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (4) Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (5) Exhibit 3 (Part 1) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (6) Exhibit 3 (Part 2) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (7) Exhibit 3 (Part 3) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (8) Exhibit 3 (Part 4) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (9) Exhibit 3 (Part 5) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (10) Exhibit 3 (Part 6) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (11) Exhibit 3 (Part 7) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (12) Exhibit 3 (Part 8) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (13) Exhibit 3 (Part 9) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (14) Exhibit 3 (Part 10) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (15) Exhibit 3 (Part 11) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (16) Exhibit 3 (Part 12) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (17) Exhibit 3 (Part 13) to Declaration of Bo Hu, # (18) Affidavit /Declaration of David P. Reiner, II)
3
10/07/2025
Order on Motion to Seal
2
10/01/2025
MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe to seal Certain Documents Containing Identifying Information About the Defendants
1
10/01/2025
COMPLAINT (REDACTED) filed by John Doe; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24138631.
已有账号去登录
2025-11-07 15:38:46
发表评论 取消回复