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 | 2026-06-11 | COMPLAINT filed by Duke University; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25240793. |
| 3 | 2026-06-11 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 4 | 2026-06-11 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Duke University by Alison K Carter |
| — | 2026-06-11 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| — | 2026-06-11 | 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. |
| 5 | 2026-06-11 | MOTION by Plaintiff Duke University for leave to file Certain Documents Under Seal |
| 6 | 2026-06-12 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 7 | 2026-06-12 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 8 | 2026-06-16 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's motion to file under seal 5 is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 9 | 2026-06-18 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Duke University by Ann Marie Sullivan (Sullivan, Ann Marie) |
| 11 | 2026-07-17 | Temporary Restraining Order |
| 19 | 2026-07-20 | Leave to File Document |
| 20 | 2026-07-23 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's motion to file documents under seal [19] is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 21 | 2026-08-18 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion for electronic service [16], the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to ascertain and verify the mailing addresses for the Defendants it wishes to serve electronically. Although Plaintiff identified certain candidate addresses based on online research, Plaintiff never took the straightforward step of simply asking the Defendants directly for their physical addresses. Plaintiff acknowledges that it has the email addresses associated with the Defendants. It would appear reasonable, therefore, to contact those email addresses (including for the Chinese Defendants) to inquire whether an exact physical address can be obtained. Moreover, with respect to the Chinese Defendants, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff's online research was sufficient. Plaintiff's investigation amounted to plugging in a candidate address into various mapping platforms (e.g., Google, Bing) and observing if the search results listed the corresponding Defendant's Seller Alias. But as Plaintiff observes, because the Defendants' marketplace seller names are generally not registered legal entities, it is unclear why this method is effective, as it essentially assumes that each Defendant lists its seller name on Google Maps, Bing, Baidu, etc. Plaintiff has not established this predicate fact. Absent this, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any reasonably diligent efforts in investigating those candidate addressesby sending a test mailing or an on-foot investigator, for exampleto determine whether any correspond to the Defendant's physical address. The motion [16] is therefore denied without prejudice to refile. While the Court understands that Plaintiff also seeks email service on certain Defendants who reside in locations that have not objected to Article 10(a) of Hague Convention, for judicial economy, the Court will reserve ruling on those Defendants until after it receives Plaintiff's refiled motion. Mailed notice. |