MAILED Patent report with certified copy of minute order dated 3/31/2025 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Under Rule 41(a)(1), 25, this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. as to all remaining Defendants

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 2/11/2025, the court ordered plaintiff to file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 3/14/2025. 23. To date, plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff is directed to file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 3/28/2025. Plaintiff is also directed to file a status report by that date, updating the court on the status of service and how plaintiff seeks to proceed with this litigation. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case for failure to comply with court orders and/or failure to prosecute.

ORDER: Edward L. Bishop, Benjamin A. Campbell, and Sameeul Haque's motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff, 22, is granted. Edward L. Bishop, Benjamin A. Campbell, and Sameeul Haque are granted leave to withdraw, and are terminated as counsel for plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion to stay pending deadlines, 22, is granted. Plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 3/14/2025. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/11/2025. Mailed notice

MOTION by Attorney Edward L. Bishop, Attorney Benjamin A. Campbell, and Attorney Sameeul Haque to withdraw as attorney for Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. No party information provided, MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. to stay deadlines

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, 20, is granted. Plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 2/14/2025.

MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. for extension of time to Address the Court's Minute Entry 18

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, 16 is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 18.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 4, and for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, 14 are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 4. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 4, and for a temporary restraining order, 14, are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 5, 6, 7, 8, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025.

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/27/2024: Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. for Alternative Service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 14

附件：

1:Declaration of Nicholas S. Lee
2:(Exhibit 1)

MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. for temporary restraining order

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. by Nicholas S. Lee

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. by Sameeul Haque

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. by Benjamin Adam Campbell

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. by Edward L. Bishop

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. Exhibit 2C

附件：

1:(Defendant 79)
2:Defendant 78
3:Defendant 77
4:Defendant 76
5:Defendant 75
6:Defendant 74
7:Defendant 73
8:Defendant 72
9:Defendant 71
10:Defendant 70
11:Defendant 69
12:Defendant 68
13:Defendant 67
14:Defendant 66
15:Defendant 65
16:Defendant 64
17:Defendant 63
18:Defendant 62
19:Defendant 61
20:Defendant 60
21:Defendant 59
22:Defendant 58
23:Defendant 57
24:Defendant 56
25:Defendant 55
26:Defendant 54
27:Defendant 53

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. Exhibit 2B

附件：

1:(Defendant 52)
2:Defendant 51
3:Defendant 50
4:Defendant 49
5:Defendant 48
6:Defendant 47
7:Defendant 46
8:Defendant 45
9:Defendant 44
10:Defendant 43
11:Defendant 42
12:Defendant 41
13:Defendant 40
14:Defendant 39
15:Defendant 38
16:Defendant 37
17:Defendant 36
18:Defendant 35
19:Defendant 34
20:Defendant 33
21:Defendant 32
22:Defendant 31
23:Defendant 30
24:Defendant 29
25:Defendant 28
26:Defendant 27

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. Exhibit 2A

附件：

1:(Defendant 26)
2:Defendant 25
3:Defendant 24
4:Defendant 23
5:Defendant 22
6:Defendant 21
7:Defendant 20
8:Defendant 19
9:Defendant 18
10:Defendant 17
11:Defendant 16
12:Defendant 15
13:Defendant 14
14:Defendant 13
15:Defendant 12
16:Defendant 11
17:Defendant 10
18:Defendant 9
19:Defendant 8
20:Defendant 7
21:Defendant 6
22:Defendant 4
23:Defendant 3
24:Defendant 2
25:Defendant 1

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1).

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. Complaint

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Schedule A
3:Exhibit 6
4:(Notice of Claims)

MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal

Notice of Claims Involving Patents or Trademarks by Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd.

CIVIL Cover Sheet

COMPLAINT filed by Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. ; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22414734.

附件：

1:Schedule A (Redacted)
2:Exhibit 1 (Redacted)
3:Exhibit 2 (Redacted)
4:Exhibit 3
5:Exhibit 4
6:Exhibit 5
7:(Exhibit 6 (Redacted))