2025-cv-10477

COMPLAINT filed by Dyson Technology Limited; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23990840.

Exhibit 2

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited Exhibit 1 regarding complaint[1]

MOTION by Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited for leave to file under seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Dyson Technology Limited

Notice of Claims Involving Patents by Dyson Technology Limited

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited by Justin R. Gaudio

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited by Lawrence J. Crain

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited by Justin Tyler Joseph

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited by Andrew Daniel Burnham

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Albert Berry, III. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1).

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.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 52 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. 19 and 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder at least 7 days before the filing of the motion for temporary restraining order. Alternatively, by the same date, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint and amended Schedule A reducing the number of defendants. However, if Plaintiff names multiple defendants, Plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. The Court directs Plaintiff to this Court's standing order in Schedule A cases regarding joinder on the Court's website. Mailed notice.

MAILED patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA