2025-cv-02366

COMPLAINT filed by Heng Zhu; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23171456.

(Exhibit Exhibit A)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Heng Zhu by Robert Michael Dewitty

MOTION by Plaintiff Heng Zhu to seal

MEMORANDUM by Heng Zhu in support of motion to seal 4

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Heng Zhu Schedule A

MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 162 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and "work in active concert" to infringe plaintiffs' intellectual property. But experience has shown that not all defendants named in a Schedule A case work together. More importantly, experience has shown that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. See, e.g., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 9401, Dkt. 27 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024). Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder on or before March 21, 2025. Alternatively, by the same date, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint naming one or more defendants; however, if the plaintiff names multiple defendants, the plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. All pending motions are hereby stayed pending resolution of the joinder issue. Mailed notice (gel,)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Heng Zhu

(Exhibit B)

First AMENDED complaint by Heng Zhu against Heng Zhu

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: There is no indication that the plaintiff has served the defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Failure to serve the defendant and provide proof of service on or before July 17, 2025, will result in dismissal of the complaint. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff's motion to seal [4] is denied. "The court may for good cause shown enter an order directing that one or more documents be filed under seal." L.R. 26.2(b). "[A] district court must be sensitive to the rights of the public in determining whether any particular document, or class of documents, is appropriately filed under seal." United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 228 (7th Cir. 1989). Here, the plaintiff claims that the seal is necessary because the plaintiff seeks a temporary asset restraint. No such motion has been filed. All documents in this case are unsealed. Mailed notice.