最近更新：2026-04-01
2026-cv-02417
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 03/31/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for a temporary restraining order 19 is granted in part and denied in part. Though the renewed motion did not address the Seventh Circuit's recent opinion in Yinnv Liu v Monthly, 2026 WL 681773, at *1-2 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) directly, Plaintiff's submission provided evidence of a May 2025 order for a Hydroboost Seal Repair Kit for $30.56 with Defendant huibodianzi on Amazon.com. The records submitted with the motion show that the order was placed and accepted, and that Plaintiff's investigator was provided with an order number. Therefore, the court is satisfied, at least at this stage, that Plaintiff can establish personal jurisdiction over this Defendant. The court declines to restrain any assets and security is set at $5,000. As the court already explained, it will not restrain assets through an asset freeze nor will it do so on an ex parte basis without the benefit of adversarial testing. The security must be posted within one week. Enter Sealed and modified TRO. Mailed notice. |
| 03/19/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Schedule A Template |
| 03/19/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Figueroa Declaration 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/19/2026 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Exhibit 2 to Paragoso Declaration regarding memorandum in support of motion, 20 |
| 03/19/2026 | MEMORANDUM by Robert Bosch LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 19 附件： 1:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4) 2:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3 3:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2 4:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1 5:Exhibit 1 6:Declaration Hierl Declaration 7:Declaration Paragoso Declaration |
| 03/19/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication |
| 03/16/2026 | ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 3/16/2026. Mailed notice. |
| 03/16/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for excess pages 12 is granted. The motion for other relief 13 is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied as to a temporary restraining order without prejudice to renewal; it is granted as to the request for expedited discovery and electronic service. The court has at least two concerns regarding the TRO request. First, the court has its doubts about whether Plaintiff can establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant huibodianzi at this time, though expedited discovery might reveal otherwise. Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 2021 WL 825668, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (no personal jurisdiction over a defendant where only connection to the forum was operating an online marketplace that had "the possibility" of shipping to Illinois). Here, Plaintiff's brief explains that jurisdiction can be established over Defendant because it "targets Illinois residents and has offered to sell and, on information and belief, has sold and continues to sell Counterfeit HYDRO-BOOST Products to consumers within the United States, including the State of Illinois." [Dkt. 14 at 9.] The brief also states that Defendant's online store "offers shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and has offered to sell, and on information and belief, has sold and continues to sell Counterfeit HYDRO-BOOST Products to consumers within the United States, including the State of Illinois." [Id. at 18.] Any renewed motion for a restraining order must address this issue and the Seventh Circuit's recent opinion in Yinnv Liu v Monthly, 2026 WL 681773, at *1-2 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026). Although decided in the context of Rule 60(b), the Court of Appeals observed that "In the context of Schedule A litigation, the defendant's operation of an online store accessible in the forum state, combined with sales in the forum state, has been found sufficient to subject that defendant to personal jurisdiction." Id. (citing NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 623-27 (7th Cir. 2022). But, the Yinnv Liu court said, merely owning or operating a website that is accessible in the forum state is not enough. Without evidence of Illinois purchases, it was merely only "possible to order the defendants' products and have them shipped to Illinois. Id. ("Even Liu's motion for a temporary restraining order, to which these screenshots were attached, asserted only that the screenshots demonstrate that infringing products were offered for sale to residents of the United States, including Illinois residents, not that they prove actual sales in Illinois.") Second, should Plaintiff renew its request for injunctive relief, any request for a prejudgment asset restraint is unlikely to be granted because such restraints are not to be used to secure assets for collection. Disgorgement is an equitable remedy the court can impose where the defendant "actually holds property or proceeds that belong to the plaintiff which can be returned to the plaintiff." See Cont'l Vineyard LLC v. Dzierzawski, 2018 WL 11195945, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2018). Even in the typical disgorgement of profits scenario, courts are not obligated to impose a prejudgment asset restraint. The decision to do so is discretionary. See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 735 F. Supp. 3d 981, 983 (N.D. Ill. 2024) ("[W]here a plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy like disgorgement, an asset freeze may be appropriate.") Here, the court is disinclined to exercise its discretion in the broad manner requested, particularly considering that imposing a prejudgment asset restraint is likely to encompasses legitimate assets. An asset restraint is not necessary to conduct an accounting; discovery and records of sales can provide any accounting plaintiff may be entitled to. Schedule A plaintiffs rarely pursue an actual accounting as a remedy and rarely justify requests for statutory damages by reference to actual sales figures, lost profits, or the like. Instead, counsel typically ask for statutory damages based on notions of deterrence without case-specific factual support justifying the number. A modified order as to expedited discovery and electronic service will separately issue. Mailed notice. |
| 03/11/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Kalbac Declaration |
| 03/11/2026 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Exhibit 2 to Paragoso Declaration regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14 |
| 03/11/2026 | MEMORANDUM by Robert Bosch LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 13 附件： 1:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4) 2:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3 3:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2 4:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1 5:Declaration Hierl Declaration 6:Exhibit 1 7:Declaration Paragoso Declaration |
| 03/11/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication |
| 03/11/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation |
| 03/05/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to seal 8 is granted. The clerk is directed to update the case caption to reflect that Defendant is "huibodianzi." No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Any motion for electronic service of process or request for early discovery should be filed by March 11, 2026. Mailed notice. |
| 03/04/2026 | 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. |
| 03/04/2026 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 03/04/2026 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Robert Bosch LLC |
| 03/04/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Sealed Schedule A |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 03/04/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller |
| 03/04/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by John Wilson |
| 03/04/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
| 03/04/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac |
| 03/04/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Michael A. Hierl |
| 03/04/2026 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 03/04/2026 | COMPLAINT filed by Robert Bosch LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24802754. 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
