MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal 23, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the case is dismissed without prejudice. ***The Court notes that if the Plaintiff refiles the case with any of the Defendants in the First Amended Complaint, then the Plaintiff must note on the Civil Cover Sheet that it is a refiling of a previously dismissed case.*** Status hearing of 12/13/2024 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Floatsup, LLC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) (A.) In this design-patent case (at least for the purposes of the TRO motion, which does not rely on the utility-patent claims), on review of the TRO motion and supporting brief, R. 18, R. 18-1, including the screenshot of the allegedly infringing item, and comparing it to the design patent at issue, R. 15-2, the motion is denied. On the merits of the alleged infringement, the question is whether the ordinary observer would decide that the two designs are substantially the same. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 670 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). Courts must carefully exclude the unclaimed and functional features from the visual comparison, because functional features are not part of the patent's scope. Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed.Cir. 1995). Indeed, even the prior art must be considered: "When the differences between the claimed and accused design are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention of the hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design that differ from the prior art. And when the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design are likely to be important to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer." Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676. Based on the evidence proffered here, no sufficient showing on infringement has been made. There are raised-ridged designs on the Defendant's product that do not appear on the design patent. Also, the curvature of the top of the Defendant's product appears considerably steeper than the curves in the design patent. (B.) On the requirements of irreparable injury and inadequate remedy at law, no clear showing has been made as required for a TRO, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Unlike a counterfeit trademark case (which requires an identical or substantially indistinguishable mark) or an exact-copy copyright case, there is no reasonable basis here to infer willful infringement of the design patent, especially on an ex parte basis, that otherwise would in turn support a finding of dissipation of assets (for sealing) or the need to forgo notice (for the TRO). (2.) In light of those findings, the Court also reconsiders the sealing of the First Amended Complaint and Amended Schedule A. Given the findings underlying the denial of the TRO, there is no longer a sufficient basis to believe that the Defendant will destroy evidence or transfer assets. It is one thing to infer in a counterfeit trademark or copyright case that online sellers are knowingly violating trademark or copyright laws, and thus operate with false identities or would otherwise destroy evidence or evade judgments. It is quite another to infer that a design-patent infringement case involves defendants akin to counterfeiting defendants, especially on this record. Absent a motion to maintain seal, the Clerk shall unseal the First Amended Complaint and its exhibits, R. 15, on 11/25/2024. (3.) The aspect of the motion that requests expedited discovery is denied, given the denial of the TRO. (4.) The aspect of the motion that requests electronic service of process is denied without prejudice to filing a renewed motion. The request appears to rely on the Declaration of Mackenzie Paladino, R. 18 at 14-15. There does not appear to be any such declaration attached to the motion. Any renewed motion and declaration must confirm that no physical address is available on the Defendant's website (or if there is a physical address, evidence that it is fake). The renewed motion is due no later than 12/02/2024, or else the Plaintiff must begin service of process efforts. (4.) The tracking status hearing of 11/15/2024 is reset to 12/13/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the Plaintiff shall file a status report by 12/06/2024. Emailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion for TRO remains under advisement. The tracking status hearing of 10/18/2024 is reset to 11/15/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court has the motion for temporary restraining order under advisement. The tracking status hearing of 09/27/2024 is reset to 10/18/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice

STATUS Report by Floatsup, LLC

SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Floatsup, LLC for Temporary Restraining Order

附件：

1:(Exhibit A to Declaration of Eric Fitzgerald)
2:Declaration of Eric Fitzgerald
3:Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Trevor W. Barrett
4:Declaration of Trevor W. Barrett
5:Memorandum in Support of Motion

Unsealed First AMENDED complaint by Floatsup, LLC against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A without Schedule A

附件：

1:(Exhibit 2 to First Amended Complaint)
2:Exhibit 1 to First Amended Complaint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Although the motion [14] to seal R. 15 is granted given the asset-restraint goal, the Plaintiff shall file a public version without Amended Schedule A on the docket by 08/29/2024. The tracking status hearing of 08/23/2024 is reset to 09/27/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). The Plaintiff shall file a status report by 09/20/2024. Emailed notice

MOTION by Plaintiff Floatsup, LLC to seal Certain Documents

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Floatsup, LLC by Trevor William Barrett

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Floatsup, LLC by Mackenzie Paladino

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Floatsup, LLC

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Floatsup, LLC -- (Unredacted) Schedule A to Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Floatsup, LLC -- (Unredacted) Complaint

附件：

1:(Exhibit 9 to Complaint)
2:Exhibit 8 to Complaint
3:Exhibit 7 to Complaint
4:Exhibit 6 to Complaint
5:Exhibit 5 to Complaint
6:Exhibit 4 to Complaint
7:Exhibit 3 to Complaint
8:Exhibit 2 to Complaint
9:Exhibit 1 to Complaint

COMPLAINT filed by Floatsup, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22309932.

附件：

1:Exhibit 8 to Complaint
2:Exhibit 7 to Complaint
3:Exhibit 6 to Complaint
4:Exhibit 5 to Complaint
5:Exhibit 4 to Complaint
6:Exhibit 3 to Complaint
7:Exhibit 2 to Complaint
8:Exhibit 1 to Complaint
9:Exhibit 9 to Complaint
10:(Schedule A to Complaint)