Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-07-17
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-05330
状态：open
提交时间：2025-07-02 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 | 2025-07-02 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages [17] is granted. However, Plaintiff's renewed motion for TRO [18] is denied without prejudice. In order to be entitled to equitable relief, like a TRO, Plaintiff must show (among other things) that there is ongoing or impending harm. Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 881 F.3d 577, 583 n.2 (7th Cir. 2018). The evidence submitted in this case supports allegations of infringement in early January 2025 [11], which, in this Court's view, is too old to support a finding of ongoing harm at this time. To the extent a renewed motion is filed, Plaintiff must include either recent evidence of infringement, or a live link that the Court can click on that would demonstrate ongoing harm. Last, the Court has admonished counsel regarding compliance with this Court's case management procedures [6] [15]. Namely, Plaintiff's counsel previously failed to file a notice of presentment for a motion [6] and failed to notice other motions for presentment on a date consistent with the Court's schedule [15]. Counsel, again, has failed to properly notice its motions. The most recent notice of presentment [19] was filed on 6/30/25, yet notices a motion for presentment on 6/26/25. Unless counsel has a time machine, that date was impossible. Counsel also failed to, as this Court's case procedures require, create a redline of their proposed TRO order against the relevant template and send both a clean and redline copy to Proposed_Order_Hunt@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is admonished to carefully review filings before submission and to comply with all court rules and procedures before filing any motion. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a schedule A [5], which the Court unsealed for the reasons stated in [6], that displays the name of the lone remaining defendant. Plaintiff therefore has not established exceptional circumstances that would provide any basis for sealing the names of associated defendants listed in its filings. See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Many 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."). Thus, Plaintiff's motions to seal [8] [16] are denied. The Clerk is directed, forthwith, to unseal the documents filed at [7] [11] [13] [18]. The Clerk is also directed, forthwith, to update the caption to reflect that the lone remaining Defendant is "Shenzhen Lindsay Technology Co., Ltd." The parties are further ordered to file the form Scheduling Order for Patent Cases by 8/4/25. A template for the Order can be found in Appendix A to the Local Patent Rules. Parties should review the Local Patent Rules prior to completing the Scheduling Order. A telephonic initial status hearing is set for 8/14/25, at 9:45 AM. Attorneys/parties may appear by dialing: 1-650-479-3207 and entering access code: 2311 499 1046. No attendee code is required. Please review in advance the policies governing telephonic hearings that can be found on Judge Hunt's webpage on the court website. All other pending motions [20] are denied. The motion hearing set for 7/8/25 [21] is stricken. Mailed notice (gel,) |
