FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 77 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendant

***Civil Case Terminated.

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 11/15/2021. Mailed notice

ORDER. No remaining Defendant has responded to Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion 53 is granted. Because Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Plaintiff has presented evidence that each Defendant Internet Store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet Stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase infringing products. In addition, based on the evidence previously submitted by Plaintiff and the admission of liability byvirtue of the default, Plaintiff has established that a permanent injunction iswarranted. The infringement of Plaintiff's patent irreparably harms Plaintiff and confuses the public. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff the damages amounts set forth in the separate final judgment order based upon an accounting of the profits made by each Defaulting Defendant, which amounts are, again, not contested by any Defaulting Defendant. Enter separate Final Judgment Order. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 11/15/2021. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 11/12/2021, Plaintiff and Defendant SPLOV Official Store filed a jointly-executed stipulation of dismissal 74. Accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant SPLOV Official Store based on the terms of the parties' stipulation and by operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. Mailed notice

***Civil Case Terminated.

STIPULATION of Dismissal SPLOV Official Store

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 11/12/2021, Plaintiff filed a document 72 labeled "Notice of Dismissal Under Rule 41(a)(1)," which in the ordinary course under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), would be a self-executing act that dismisses the case without the need for a separate court order. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Yet a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order only if the notice of dismissal is filed "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). If the opposing party has already served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, an automatic dismissal can occur only if the stipulation of dismissal is "signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In this case, Defendant SPLOV Official Store already filed an answer 65 on 7/23/2021, but today's "Notice of Dismissal" 72 was signed only by counsel for Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff's effort to dismiss this case through his one-party notice of dismissal, which is not styled as a motion under Rule 41(a)(2), is ineffective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). If the parties do in fact jointly intend to stipulate to a dismissal, the parties must file a stipulation of dismissal that complies with FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). If Plaintiff wishes the Court to construe the Notice as a motion under Rule 41(a)(2), then Plaintiff must file a statement to that effect on the docket. A status hearing is set for 12/3/2021 at11:20 AM; the parties shall use the same call-in information 41. That hearing will be stricken if an effective stipulation of dismissal (or statement asking the Court to treat the Notice as a motion) is filed in advance. Mailed notice

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendant

SCHEDULING Order Under Rule 16(b). Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/13/2021: Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On the Court's own motion, the telephonic status hearing set for 8/16/21 at 11:15 a.m. is stricken and reset to 1/17/22 at 9:45 a.m. Mailed notice

STATUS Report by Oakley, Inc.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Telephonic status hearing set for 8/16/2021 at 10:45 AM is reset for 8/16/2021 at 11:15 AM. TIME CHANGE ONLY. Mailed notice

ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/27/2021: Telephonic initial status hearing is set for 8/16/2021 at 10:45 AM. Consistent with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are directed to meet and conduct a planning conference in advance of the initial status hearing. No later than seven business days before the status hearing, the parties shall jointly complete and file on the docket a report that provides the information required by the Court's model Joint Initial Status Report, which can be found at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?Iu9/vqz23r5X7AkWx/nLtg== (see link entitled "Joint Initial Status Report"). If all Defendants have not yet been served or have not yet responded to requests to draft the required Joint Initial Status Report, Plaintiff must file the report on its own and must inform the Court of that circumstance. The parties are to use the following call-in number: 888-684-8852, conference code 3796759. The public and media representatives may have access to the hearing via the same number. Audio recording of the hearing is not permitted; violations of this prohibition may result in sanctions. Participants are directed to keep their device muted when they are not speaking. Mailed notice

ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/27/2021.Mailed notice

ANSWER to Complaint by SPLOV Official Store

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT REGARDING FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) STATEMENT by Oakley, Inc.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 53 for entry of default and default judgment against all Defendants except SPLOV. All remaining defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default is entered as to those Defendants under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment must be filed on or before 07/20/2021. If no objections are filed by that date, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining Defendants within two business days of its entry on the docket. Separately, now that SPLOV's motion to dismiss has been denied, Plaintiff must file a statement on or before 07/16/2021 concerning whether, in Plaintiff's view, there is "no just reason" to delay entry of a final judgment in this case as to "fewer than all" claims or parties. See FRCP 54(b). As the Supreme Court has instructed, the Court, in making a determination under Rule 54(b), must weigh both (1) the interests of sound judicial administration and (2) the "equities involved." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). See also Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Clark Mall Corp., 644 F.3d 375, 379 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing Rule 54(b)). It does not appear that Plaintiff has addressed these considerations in its motion for default judgment. In preparing its statement due 07/16/2021, Plaintiff should bear in mind that "requests under Rule 54(b) are granted neither routinely nor as a matter of course." Architectural Floor Prods. Co. v. Don Brann & Assocs. Co., 551 F. Supp. 802, 807 (N.D. Ill. 1982). Accordingly, the Court doubts that Plaintiff will be able to demonstrate that there is "no just reason" to delay entry of a partial final judgment in this case. Mailed notice

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/9/2021. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's motion to dismiss 39 is denied. SPLOV's answer to the complaint must be filed on or before 07/23/2021. See FRCP 12(a)(4)(A). Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant SPLOV's motion for hearing 59 is denied. The Court is aware of Defendant's pending motion to dismiss and opposition to the pending motion for a preliminary injunction and intends to rule on the motions in due course (possibly within the next week). Because the Court has all of the necessary points and authorities before it, a hearing on the pending motions, at least at this time, would not "be of assistance to the Court." (Mot. at 2.) Finally, Defendant's motion, which purports only to seek a hearing, appears also to be a thinly-disguised effort to add substantive material to the briefs it has already filed. No order, however, called for additional briefing on the pending substantive motions. Accordingly, the additional substantive argument contained in the motion for a hearing is stricken. If Defendant believes that the Court would benefit from additional briefing, it should file a motion seeking leave to file a supplemental brief. Mailed notice

MOTION by Defendant SPLOV Official Store for hearing re MOTION by Defendant SPLOV Official Store to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper service and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction[39]

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendants

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendants

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendants

NOTICE by Oakley, Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for entry of default against the Defendants identified on Schedule A, with the exception of Defendant SPLOV Official StoreMOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to the Defendants identified in Schedule A, with the exception of Defendant SPLOV Official Store[53]

MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment, [53]

附件：

1:Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio
2:Exhibit 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for entry of default against the Defendants identified on Schedule A, with the exception of Defendant SPLOV Official Store, MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to the Defendants identified in Schedule A, with the exception of Defendant SPLOV Official Store

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain Defendants

REPLY by SPLOV Official Store to memorandum in opposition to motion[47]

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Motion for leave to file under seal [46] is granted. Mailed notice

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 5 regarding declaration[48]

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in opposition to motion[47]

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 3
4:Exhibit 4
5:Exhibit 5
6:Exhibit 6
7:Exhibit 7

MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in Opposition to motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction[39]

MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for leave to file under seal

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 9/29/20 before the Honorable John F. Kness. Order Number: 39295. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy LaBella, nlabella.ilnd@gmail.com, 312-435-6890. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/10/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/18/2021.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendant

NEW PARTIES: Shop3478042 Store, MADELINY Official Store, KDEAMIX Store, vikulsi Official Store, CCspace Official Store, Sunture Store, Mincl Glasses Brand Store, Nico & Niko Online Store, YesR Store, TC666 Store, S&H Glasses Store, ZOKARESUN Glasses Store, Riceball Store, RageRace Cycling Equipment Store, Brosailyang os Official Store, CHUNYANG Store, Shop3863006 Store, Dayiwa Store, fs yuri yuan outdoor store, FASOBIU clothes Store, Shop4502118 Store, Shop5025024 Store, Victorsense Fishing Store, Shop5075130 Store, gifansee Official Store, Shop5239022 Store, SPORTSAD Store, Shop5249047 Store, Metomoshy Ifashiony Store, Chinese-Sun glasses Store, DeFanxi Store, Shop5603365 Store, Flyings Fish Clothes Store, whatapp+8614796412720 Store, WERGASUN Store, Ulysses Fitness Store, Shop5777952 Store, seventpeople Store, Arike Outdoor Store, Flyings Fish Two Clothes Store, Fit Fit Store, Shop5785691 Store, Professional outdoor product Store, 2021 cycling Store, Sunley bags Store, Shop5879239 Store, Shop5887461 Store, Beast sunglasses Store, Shop5890746 Store, alilanglang Store, Shop910341040 Store, Two tigers, sfcxnedZPvO1Z4lv, Zonlin-NA, tianfengjiulou, jfgrobal, XDSshop, CGOSE, mingtianhao, theauvlb, netetufjmdi, neneethunfwi, smoonetqbsuj, jeckoqfa, middeighygky, deteighssjh, teshesonbhj, sisesletffg, thenetlwiy, lalishapus, tathousehvmd, shouteeshtoyncq, rertofmqrg, pashatjrqvnw, soopeyezgwdebx, Tingp, shonneegkyv, tateswlwg, hennosgag, tooruezflumnt, teighulkp, thisheltfcao, derakasdr, sleighthshqqqe, thasisrjv, tesseoteq, Tiomc, smeathebphd, geshothpdm, mcsoudoosrvk, tashoquoow, seateeokbkf, shirrehjijoj, sliterqtcdt, semititutodld, poteshfqsaes, sekesllplm, thaponsxqkup, Courtneyyy, DianneUU, Paulaaaee, Mirandaaa, sheaushdltml, NJHUU, KOJIP, UYHH, NJBUH, JJJJN, GVBF, HBGF, FFFC, MMMMU, NNNK, KKKNK, SJXY and Wilmaaaee added to case caption.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 9/29/2020. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Telephonic motion hearing held on 9/29/2020. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [36] is granted except as to Defendant SPLOV (which is addressed later in this order). Plaintiff's filings establish that it has acted expeditiously to protect its interests and that there remains a significant risk Defendants will transfer relevant assets beyond the Court's reach. For these reasons, as well as the reasons provided in the whole of Plaintiff's filings and as stated by the Court in connection with entry of the TRO, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff and that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from the marketing of counterfeit goods. Plaintiff has also established [35] that it provided electronic notice to defendants of its motion for a preliminary injunction, but no objection has been filed on behalf of any defendant other than SPLOV. Enter preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the court's docket within five business days. As to defendant SPLOV's motion to dismiss [39] and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff's response is due on or before 10/20/2020. Any reply is due on or before 10/27/2020. For the reasons stated in open court and in connection with the Court's previous orders granting a TRO, the Court extends the TRO as against Defendant SPLOV pending briefing on the motion to dismiss and opposition to Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, as well as any hearing that the Court may require. In particular, the Court finds that the risk Defendant could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court warrants keeping the TRO in place against SPLOV, beyond the 28-day limit of FRCP 65(b), pending further proceedings and resolution of the motion for a preliminary injunction. See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 844 (7th Cir. 2012). Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: A telephonic motion hearing is set for 9/29/20 at 9:45 a.m. on plaintiff's pending motion for a preliminary injunction. Counsel are to use the following call-in number: 888-684-8852, conference code 3796759. The public and media representatives may have access to the hearing via the same number. Audio recording of the hearing is not permitted; violations of this prohibition may result in sanctions. Participants are directed to keep their device muted when they are not speaking. Mailed notice

MEMORANDUM by SPLOV Official Store in support of motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction[39] and improper service and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction

附件：

1:Declaration of Zhang
2:Exhibit 1

MOTION by Defendant SPLOV Official Store to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper service and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction

NOTICE by Oakley, Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for preliminary injunction [36]

MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction[36]

附件：

1:Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio
2:Exhibit 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for preliminary injunction

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" on 9/23/2020, answer due 10/14/2020.

附件：

1:Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant SPLOV Official Store by He Cheng

EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 9/11/2020. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Motion for extension of temporary restraining order [29] is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice

NOTICE by Oakley, Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order[29]

MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of extension of time[29]

附件：

1:Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio

MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant SPLOV Official Store by Tianyu Ju

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant SPLOV Official Store by Andrew Jonathan Palmer Palmer, Andrew

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant SPLOV Official Store by Wei Yang Yang, Wei

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant SPLOV Official Store by Tao Liu Liu, Tao

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 9/1/2020.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal [3], ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [12], and motion for electronic service of process [17] are granted. Plaintiff's submissions establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries [2], [4], and [16]. In addition, for the purpose of these motions, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by Plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit goods, and there is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. 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. As other judges in this District have noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of the joinder of all Defendants in this one action and whether plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any defendant appears and objects, the court will revisit the asset freeze and joinder. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice

Notice of Claims Involving Patents by Oakley, Inc.

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Oakley, Inc.

NOTICE by Oakley, Inc. re MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for leave to file under seal[3], MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) [17], MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery[12]

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[18]

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2

MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[17]

MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 2 - Parts 1-3 regarding declaration 15

附件：

1:Exhibit 2-1
2:Exhibit 2-2
3:Exhibit 2-3

DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion[13]

附件：

1:Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[13]

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2

MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order[12]

MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on July 10, 2020. This Order does not extend or modify any deadlines set in civil cases. No motions may be noticed for in-person presentment; the presiding judge will notify parties of the need, if any, for a hearing by electronic means or in-court proceeding. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/10/2020. Mailed notice.

MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Thomas Joseph Juettner

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Jake Michael Christensen

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler