SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co. Ltd.

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co., Ltd. by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for temporary restraining order and Expedited Discovery RENEWED

附件：

1:Declaration of Liangjie Li in Support of Renewed Motion for Temporary Restrainin
2:Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
3:Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
4:Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
5:Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
6:Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
7:Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Renewed Motion for Temporary Rest
8:Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

FIRST AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co. Ltd. and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto

附件：

1:Exhibit 5 to the Complaint
2:Exhibit 4 to the Complaint
3:Exhibit 3 to the Complaint
4:Exhibit 1 to the Complaint
5:Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

ORDER re Misjoinder Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 6/3/2025: Plaintiff has until 6/17/2025, to file an amended complaint narrowing the claims down to a subset of defendants that are properly joined.

RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause to text entry, [16]

附件：

1:Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Memorandum in Support of Joinder
2:Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum in Support of Joinder

AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto

附件：

1:Exhibit 6 to the Complaint
2:Exhibit 5 to the Complaint
3:Exhibit 4 to the Complaint
4:Exhibit 1 to the Complaint
5:Exhibit 3 to the Complaint
6:Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, [12], 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. [17].

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 [14]. "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 motion for leave to file under seal, [4], and for a temporary restraining order, [14], are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [5], are stricken. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, [13], is granted. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 5/15/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 5/24/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright, trademark, or patent in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021).

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [4], is 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. Id. at 1. "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. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [4], is therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [5], are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file an unredacted version of its complaint publicly on the docket by 5/15/2025.

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for temporary restraining order

附件：

1:Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order
2:Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining
3:Declaration of Liangjie Li in Support of Temporary Restraining Order
4:Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
5:Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
6:Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
7:Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
8:Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for leave to file excess pages for Temporary Restraining Order

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication and Electronic Service

附件：

1:Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Motion for Electronic Service
2:Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Motion for Electronic Service

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Gokalp Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joseph Wendell Droter

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal [4]

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal

附件：

1:Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn
2:Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Motion to Seal
3:Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Complaint regarding complaint, [1]

COMPLAINT for Copyright Infringement filed by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23442146.

附件：

1:Exhibit 1 to the Complaint
2:Exhibit 2 to the Complaint
3:Exhibit 3 to the Complaint
4:Exhibit 4 to the Complaint
5:Exhibit 5 to the Complaint
6:Exhibit 6 to the Complaint