MAILED Patent report with certified copy of minute order dated 08/27/25 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (bi,)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: On 8/19/25, this Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 8/26/25 "specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity" and warning that failure to do so would result in the current complaint being dismissed [10]. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the current complaint [1] is dismissed without prejudice and this case is closed. All pending deadlines are terminated as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel,)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Plaintiff filed this patent infringement case naming 24 defendants under seal along with a motion for leave to seal 5 and a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order with a temporary injunction, asset restraint, and expedited discovery 6. Plaintiff also filed over 1500 pages of attachments to the complaint 9, also under seal. But this Court, like so many of my colleagues, remains unconvinced that "these commonplace efforts in Schedule A cases to obtain secret relief comport with principles of procedural due process." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025)(Kness, J.) As an initial matter, these infringement cases rarely present exceptional circumstances that would justify sealing the names of all defendants and documents pertaining to their alleged infringing activity, let alone an entire case, even temporarily. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." Id. More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any 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." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). It is not enough that alleged counterfeiters might quickly shut down the online store and move money if alerted to the fact that they are being sued. Due process still affords them the right to receive notice and a chance to present a defense before restraining all of their assets based solely on one-sided documentary evidence from Plaintiff. Absent a detailed explanation to establish good cause for sealing in accordance with Local Rule 26.2 and Seventh Circuit precedentwhich has not been provided heresealing is not appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal 5 is denied, and the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the entire case, forthwith. Turning to Plaintiff's combined motion for injunctive relief and expedited discovery, Plaintiff has not come close to meeting the exacting standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to warrant such ex parte relief. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to submit a single supporting affidavit with "specific facts" to "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result" along with a certification from counsel. That alone is reason to deny this extraordinary request. See Eicher Motors Ltd., 2025 WL 2299593 at *4-7. The combined motion 6 is denied without prejudice. Finally, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 24 defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299. Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations on "information and belief" about coordinated counterfeiting activity between defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 8/26/25, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Mailed notice

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD. regarding complaint 1

附件：

1:(Part 11)
2:Part 10
3:Part 9
4:Part 8
5:Part 7
6:Part 6
7:Part 5
8:Part 4
9:Part 3
10:Part 2

MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

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

MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD. to file under seal

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD. by Qi Men

CIVIL Cover Sheet (Received at intake 08/12/2025.)

COMPLAINT filed by Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD.; (Received at intake 08/12/2025.)