2025-cv-05330

COMPLAINT filed by PG Ltd.,; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23484098.

Schedule A

Ex.1

Ex.2

(Ex.3)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff PG Ltd., by James Edward Judge

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., for leave to file Documents Under Seal

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 LaShonda A. Hunt. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1).

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff PG Ltd., Unredacted Complaint

Schedule A

(Ex.1)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff names 179 Defendants in this single case. However, after reviewing the complaint [1] [5] and other filings, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all Defendants. See 35 U.S.C. § 299; Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23 C 4587, 2024 WL 68332, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) ("accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants. based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit."). By 7/2/25, Plaintiff must either (a) file a supplemental memorandum that refers to specific facts alleged in its filings and provides citations to specific screenshots associated with each Schedule A Defendant to demonstrate that joinder is proper; or (b) file under seal an amended Schedule A with a subset of Defendants, along with an amended declaration that explains how each of these Defendants is properly joined with each other and includes labeled exhibits that contain screenshots or other information specific to Defendants listed on amended Schedule A only. In addition, Plaintiff's motion to seal [4] was not noticed for presentment in accordance with this Court's case management procedures. All counsel is reminded to review and comply with all court procedures. For future reference, non-compliant motions may be summarily stricken. Nonetheless, the Court denies the motion [4]. Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances that would provide any basis for sealing the names of associated defendants listed in its complaint and schedule A [5] or filed a temporary restraining order as indicated in its motion to seal [4]. See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Many 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."). Thus, the request to seal Plaintiff's complaint and schedule A [4] is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed, forthwith, to unseal Plaintiff's complaint and its attachments [5]. Consequently, the Clerk's Office is also directed, forthwith, to update the docket to reflect that the Plaintiff's name is "Pickuls Gizmo Ltd." Mailed notice (gel,)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff PG Ltd., Amended Schedule A to the Complaint

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., for leave to file documents under seal

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., for leave to file excess pages

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., for temporary restraining order

Brief in Support of Motion

Declaration of Jame E. Judge

Declaration of Kawsar Miah

Ex.1

Ex.2

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff PG Ltd., Ex2 Pt.1 to Declaration of Kawsar Miah

DECLARATION of James E. Judge regarding order on motion for leave to file, text entry, [6] Second Declaration of James E. Judge in Support of Joinder

Ex.1

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff PG Ltd., Ex.1 to Second Declaration of James E. Judge [12]

NOTICE of Motion by James Edward Judge for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages[9], motion for leave to file[8], motion for temporary restraining order[10] before Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 6/26/2025 at 10:00 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: The Court previously entered an order [6] questioning whether Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that permissive joinder of 179 Defendants in this case was proper under 35 U.S.C. §299. Plaintiff was granted leave to file either a supplemental memorandum or an amended Schedule A consistent with that ruling. In response, Plaintiff filed the Second Declaration of James E. Judge in Support of Joinder [12], arguing that joinder is proper for these 40 Defendants because they "use the same shipping address" for their products (which Plaintiff has ordered). Plaintiff presumably contends that such similarities support its conclusory allegation that Defendants' actions arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, but the Court remains unconvinced. See Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23 C 4587, 2024 WL 68332, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (finding that plaintiff's allegations that all of the defendants' online storefronts share numerous similarities, are located in China, and have a similar number of employees were insufficient to establish joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299). The shipping address Plaintiff provides appears to be for a local distribution center that does not show a sufficient link between the Defendants for joinder to be proper. Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the misjoinder here, the Court exercises its discretion to do so. Therefore, the Court dismisses Defendants 2-40 [7] without prejudice for improper joinder. This action will proceed as to Defendant 1 only. Plaintiff's motion for a TRO [10] and motion for leave to file excess pages [9] as to all Defendants are terminated as moot. Plaintiff's motion to seal [8] remains under advisement. By 6/30/25, Plaintiff may file a renewed TRO motion as to Defendant 1 [7], whose identity shall remain under seal until that date. If no further relief is sought, all previously sealed documents will be unsealed, and the Court will set case management deadlines. Last, the motion hearing set for 6/26/25 [14] is stricken, and the Court notes that 6/26/25 is listed on the Court's webpage as a date on which motions are not to be noticed for presentment. Counsel is reminded to review the Court's schedule before noticing motions for presentment. Mailed notice (gel,)

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., for leave to file Documents Under Seal

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., for leave to file excess pages

SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., RENEWED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

NOTICE of Motion by James Edward Judge for presentment of

MOTION by Plaintiff PG Ltd., to strike notice of motion[19] Improperly Formatted Document

NOTICE of Motion by James Edward Judge for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages[17], Sealed motion[18], motion for leave to file[16] before Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 7/8/2025 at 10:00 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages 17 is granted. However, Plaintiff's renewed motion for TRO 18 is denied without prejudice. In order to be entitled to equitable relief, like a TRO, Plaintiff must show (among other things) that there is ongoing or impending harm. Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 881 F.3d 577, 583 n.2 (7th Cir. 2018). The evidence submitted in this case supports allegations of infringement in early January 2025 11, which, in this Court's view, is too old to support a finding of ongoing harm at this time. To the extent a renewed motion is filed, Plaintiff must include either recent evidence of infringement, or a live link that the Court can click on that would demonstrate ongoing harm. Last, the Court has admonished counsel regarding compliance with this Court's case management procedures 6 15. Namely, Plaintiff's counsel previously failed to file a notice of presentment for a motion 6 and failed to notice other motions for presentment on a date consistent with the Court's schedule 15. Counsel, again, has failed to properly notice its motions. The most recent notice of presentment 19 was filed on 6/30/25, yet notices a motion for presentment on 6/26/25. Unless counsel has a time machine, that date was impossible. Counsel also failed to, as this Court's case procedures require, create a redline of their proposed TRO order against the relevant template and send both a clean and redline copy to Proposed_Order_Hunt@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is admonished to carefully review filings before submission and to comply with all court rules and procedures before filing any motion. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a schedule A 5, which the Court unsealed for the reasons stated in 6, that displays the name of the lone remaining defendant. Plaintiff therefore has not established exceptional circumstances that would provide any basis for sealing the names of associated defendants listed in its filings. See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Many 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."). Thus, Plaintiff's motions to seal 8 16 are denied. The Clerk is directed, forthwith, to unseal the documents filed at 7 11 13 18. The Clerk is also directed, forthwith, to update the caption to reflect that the lone remaining Defendant is "Shenzhen Lindsay Technology Co., Ltd." The parties are further ordered to file the form Scheduling Order for Patent Cases by 8/4/25. A template for the Order can be found in Appendix A to the Local Patent Rules. Parties should review the Local Patent Rules prior to completing the Scheduling Order. A telephonic initial status hearing is set for 8/14/25, at 9:45 AM. Attorneys/parties may appear by dialing: 1-650-479-3207 and entering access code: 2311 499 1046. No attendee code is required. Please review in advance the policies governing telephonic hearings that can be found on Judge Hunt's webpage on the court website. All other pending motions 20 are denied. The motion hearing set for 7/8/25 21 is stricken. Mailed notice (gel,)

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by PG Ltd., as to Defendant Shenzhen Lindsay Technology Co., Ltd.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal [23] this action is being dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions and deadlines are terminated as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel,)