2026-cv-01255

COMPLAINT filed by Robert Bosch LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24681726.

(Exhibit 1)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Michael A. Hierl

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by John Wilson

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller

MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Sealed Schedule A (Main Document 9 replaced on 2/10/2026).

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Robert Bosch LLC

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Robert Bosch LLC

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

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.

MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to unseal document Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal Docket No. 9

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion to unseal, 14, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal 9. Plaintiff's motion to seal, 8, is denied as moot. The parties are directed to file an initial joint status report by 3/9/2026. Mailed notice.

(Outline for the initial joint status report)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 3/9/2026, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Mailed notice.

DECLARATION of Jay Paragoso

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 18, is taken under advisement. Plaintiff asks for preliminary discovery to "confirm the interrelatedness of the [d]efendants" for the purposes of joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(1). In support, plaintiff cites Supreme Court caselaw that federal district courts have authority to order discovery of facts necessary to determine whether they have jurisdiction and whether venue is proper. 18 at 2; see Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n.13 (1978). It is not clear whether that rule applies in this situation, however, because joinder of defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) is not a jurisdictional or venue-related issue. By 4/1/2026, plaintiff is directed to file additional briefing explaining: (1) what factors, standards, or rules, coming from binding and relevant caselaw, apply to the court's consideration of motions for expedited discovery generally and plaintiff's motion specifically; (2) what specific information plaintiff seeks from the third-party platform; and (3) how plaintiff believes that information will or won't show that the joinder requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) are satisfied as to all defendants listed in Schedule A, 9. Finally, plaintiff's 3/9/26 deadline to show cause is stayed until the court resets it. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The parties failed to comply with the 3/9/2026 deadline 15 to file their initial joint status report. That deadline is extended to 4/10/2026. Failure to file a report by that date may result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Mailed notice.