墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
微信号: Mooting2018
墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
| 编号 | 日期 | 案件进程 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-06-26 | COMPLAINT filed by Camelbak Products, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25305477. |
| 2 | 2026-06-26 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 3 | 2026-06-26 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC by Michael A. Hierl |
| 4 | 2026-06-26 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac |
| 5 | 2026-06-26 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
| 6 | 2026-06-26 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC by John Wilson |
| 7 | 2026-06-26 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller |
| 8 | 2026-06-26 | MOTION by Plaintiff Camelbak Products, LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 10 | 2026-06-26 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Camelbak Products, LLC |
| — | 2026-06-26 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| — | 2026-06-26 | 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. |
| 11 | 2026-06-29 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 12 | 2026-06-29 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 13 | 2026-07-21 | MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman for all further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 40.4. Mailed notice. |
| 14 | 2026-07-23 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been reassigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 6 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. The Seventh Circuit has clarified that establishing personal jurisdiction in Schedule A cases requires that plaintiffs show evidence, for each defendant, of actual sales to Illinois customers and of actual products shipped to Illinois. Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074, 2026 WL 880018, at *23 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026). Mere evidence of being willing to ship to Illinois customers is insufficient. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if additional evidence is needed to establish personal jurisdiction over each Defendant under this standard. Finally, the Seventh Circuit has also ruled that the Hague Convention does not permit service by email to defendants in China. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 2026 WL 1502198, at *5 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026). If Plaintiff intends to move to effectuate service via email on defendants located in China, then Plaintiff's motion will need to provide individualized arguments for each such Defendant that the Hague Convention does not apply, supported by details of the good faith effort Plaintiff has taken to ascertain the address of each such defendant. Mailed notice. |
| 15 | 2026-09-01 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: An in-person status hearing is set for 9/8/2026 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice. |
| 16 | 2026-09-04 | STATUS Report by Camelbak Products, LLC |