最近更新：2026-05-02
2026-cv-05064
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 05/06/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal 5 but reminds counsel that all motions must be noticed for presentment. Additionally, if, as indicated, Plaintiff plans to pursue expedited discovery, it must ensure that it has a good faith factual and legal basis for its jurisdictional allegations and can fairly represent that defendant has, in fact, shipped infringing products to residents of Illinois, and not just in connection with Plaintiff's test buys. See, e.g., uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) (instructing that a "defendant's deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market in a forum state, accomplished through its website as well as through other contacts with the state, can be sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction."); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) (cautioning that "if having an interactive website were enough in situations like this one, there is no limiting principlea plaintiff could sue everywhere. Such a result would violate the principles on which Walden and Daimler rest. Having an 'interactive website' (which hardly rules out anything in 2014 [and less in 2026]) should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible. To hold otherwise would offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'") (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)); Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (noting that the Supreme Court has "consistently rejected attempts to satisfy the defendant-focused 'minimum contacts' inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State"; "however significant the plaintiff's contacts with the forum may be, those contacts cannot be 'decisive in determining whether the defendant' s due process rights are violated.'") (quoting Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332 (1980)). Finally, because it appears that Plaintiff's counsel is a member of the general bar but not the trial bar, see 2, the Court reminds counsel that strict compliance with LR 83.12 is expected. Mailed notice. |
| 05/01/2026 | 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. |
| 05/01/2026 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). |
| 05/01/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Juanren Wu to seal document sealed document 4 |
| 05/01/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Juanren Wu Schedule A to the Complaint |
| 05/01/2026 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 05/01/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Juanren Wu by William Jeffrey Hausman |
| 05/01/2026 | COMPLAINT filed by Juanren Wu; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25059377. 附件： 1:(Exhibit 4 - Department of Homeland Security Report) 2:Exhibit 3 - Chow Article 3:Exhibit 1 - Plaintiff's Design Patent 4:Exhibit 2 - U.S. Customs and Border Protection Report |
