Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 217 views

    Hong Kong Xingtai v. Schedule A - Memo Re Joinder

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Burstein
    The plaintiff filed this case against multiple online sellers for patent infringement regarding solar-powered LED lights. The plaintiff argues that joinder of the defendants is proper for two reasons: 1) The claims against all defendants arise out of the same series of transactions - they are all selling the exact same infringing product on the same marketplace. 2) There are common questions of fact regarding the identical nature of all defendants' products. Specifically, the products sold by each defendant use identical components sourced from the same manufacturer and even have identical product photos, suggesting the defendants may all be the same entity using different seller aliases. Therefore, the plaintiff believes joinder is appropriate under the legal standard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hong Kong Xingtai v. Schedule A - Memo Re Joinder

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Burstein
    217 views5 pages
    The plaintiff filed this case against multiple online sellers for patent infringement regarding solar-powered LED lights. The plaintiff argues that joinder of the defendants is proper for two reasons: 1) The claims against all defendants arise out of the same series of transactions - they are all selling the exact same infringing product on the same marketplace. 2) There are common questions of fact regarding the identical nature of all defendants' products. Specifically, the products sold by each defendant use identical components sourced from the same manufacturer and even have identical product photos, suggesting the defendants may all be the same entity using different seller aliases. Therefore, the plaintiff believes joinder is appropriate under the legal standard.

    Original Description:

    Hong Kong Xingtai v. Schedule A - Memo re Joinder

    Original Title

    Hong Kong Xingtai v. Schedule A - Memo re Joinder

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff filed this case against multiple online sellers for patent infringement regarding solar-powered LED lights. The plaintiff argues that joinder of the defendants is proper for two reasons: 1) The claims against all defendants arise out of the same series of transactions - they are all selling the exact same infringing product on the same marketplace. 2) There are common questions of fact regarding the identical nature of all defendants' products. Specifically, the products sold by each defendant use identical components sourced from the same manufacturer and even have identical product photos, suggesting the defendants may all be the same entity using different seller aliases. Therefore, the plaintiff believes joinder is appropriate under the legal standard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    217 views5 pages

    Hong Kong Xingtai v. Schedule A - Memo Re Joinder

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Burstein
    The plaintiff filed this case against multiple online sellers for patent infringement regarding solar-powered LED lights. The plaintiff argues that joinder of the defendants is proper for two reasons: 1) The claims against all defendants arise out of the same series of transactions - they are all selling the exact same infringing product on the same marketplace. 2) There are common questions of fact regarding the identical nature of all defendants' products. Specifically, the products sold by each defendant use identical components sourced from the same manufacturer and even have identical product photos, suggesting the defendants may all be the same entity using different seller aliases. Therefore, the plaintiff believes joinder is appropriate under the legal standard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    Case: 1:23-cv-15481 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/17/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:3810

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
    EASTERN DIVISION

    HONG KONG XINGTAI


    INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO. LTD.,
    Case No.: 1:23-cv-15481
    Plaintiff,
    Judge Nancy L. Maldonado
    v.
    Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole
    THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS,
    LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND
    PARTNERSHIPS, and
    UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATES
    IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A,”

    Defendants.

    PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM ESTABLISHING THAT JOINDER IS PROPER

    Pursuant to the Court’s November 1, 2023 Minute Entry (Dkt. 15), Plaintiff, Hong Kong

    Xingtai International Trade Co. LTD., (“Plaintiff”) submits this memorandum establishing that

    joinder of the current Defendants named in the Amended Verified Complaint (Dkt. 16) is proper.

    As instructed by the Court, Plaintiff has reviewed the opinion in Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v.

    The P'ships & Uninc. Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 19-cv-7878, 2020 WL 433870

    (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020) (referred to as “Estee Lauder”) and addresses the issues presented therein

    below:

    I. INTRODUCTION

    Plaintiff filed this case to prevent e-commerce store operators from continuing to violate

    Plaintiff’s patent rights by selling and/or offering for sale products which infringe upon Plaintiff’s

    patent invention (collectively, the “Unauthorized Products”). See Verified Complaint [1] and

    1
    Case: 1:23-cv-15481 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/17/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:3811

    Amended Verified Complaint [16] at ¶ 2-3. Unauthorized Products infringe upon U.S. Patent No.

    7,819,545 (“the ‘545 Patent”), which Plaintiff owns, by assignment. See [16].

    Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Entry [15] Plaintiff has filed an Amended Verified

    Complaint [16], filed an Amended Schedule A [17], and submits this Memorandum establishing

    joinder as proper pursuant to Estee Lauder.

    II. LEGAL STANDARD

    According to the Court in Estee Lauder “[u]nder Rule 20(a)(2), defendants may be joined

    in a single action if two requirements are satisfied: (1) the claims against them must be asserted

    ‘with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

    occurrences,’ and (2) there must be a ‘question of law or fact common to all defendants.’” 2020

    WL 433870 at *4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B)); see also 35 U.S.C. 299 (joinder in patent

    cases is proper if claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

    occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or

    selling the same accused product or process and questions of fact common to all defendants will

    arise in the action). Claims against multiple defendants are viewed as arising out of the same

    transaction or occurrence if there is a logical relationship between each cause of action, which is

    present when there is “‘substantial evidentiary overlap in the facts giving rise to the cause of action

    against each defendant.’” Estee Lauder, 2020 WL 433870 at *4-5 (citations omitted).

    III. ARGUMENT

    In the present case, Plaintiff’s recently filed Amended Verified Complaint and Amended

    Schedule A satisfy the standard for joinder, in accordance with the Court’s opinion in Estee Lauder,

    Rule 20 and 35 U.S.C. 299. In fact, all of the defendants listed in Amended Schedule A

    2
    Case: 1:23-cv-15481 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/17/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3812

    (collectively, the “Defendants”), appear to potentially be one entity disguising itself using multiple

    Seller Aliases.

    Defendants’ online marketplace accounts are on the same marketplace. Additionally,

    Defendants are not merely selling products that both infringe the ‘545 Patent, but rather sell the

    exact same infringing product. While similar products themselves may not be sufficient to establish

    joinder, since, “‘[u]nless there is an actual link between the facts underlying each claim of

    infringement, independently developed products using differently sourced parts are not part of the

    same transaction, even if they are otherwise coincidentally identical,’” the Unauthorized Products

    sold by Defendants in this case appear to be identical, in every way. Estee Lauder, 2020 WL

    433870 at *9 (citing In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Defendants’

    Unauthorized Products appear to use the exact same 1) solar panel; 2) solar panel housing; 3)

    electrical string connecting each socket; 4) sockets, identical in size, shape, and number; and 5)

    the LED bulbs. See Exhibit 2 to the Amended Verified Complaint [17-1]-[17-2]. These

    Unauthorized Products, and the parts that make them up, are likely from the same source and not

    merely coincidentally identical. In fact, Defendants even use the exact same promotional

    photographs, showing various measurements of the Unauthorized Products, which further prove

    that they are identical and identically sourced. See Exhibit 2 [17-1]-[17-2]. Finally, a review of the

    price for the Unauthorized Products, without discount, reveals that the Unauthorized Products are

    only $0.50 apart in price. See Exhibit 2 [17-1]-[17-2].

    Given the evidence, not only is joinder pursuant the Court’s opinion in Estee Lauder proper,

    but it is probable that Defendants are actually a single Defendant with multiple seller aliases,

    rendering the question of joinder moot.

    3
    Case: 1:23-cv-15481 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/17/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:3813

    IV. CONCLUSION

    For the reasons set forth above, joinder of Defendants listed on the Amended Schedule A

    to the Amended Verified Complaint is proper. This approach is consistent with the legal standard

    for joinder outlined in Estee Lauder and, thus, joinder of the Defendants is proper.

    4
    Case: 1:23-cv-15481 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/17/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:3814

    Date: November 17, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

    /s/ Nicholas S. Lee


    ebishop@bdl-iplaw.com
    Nicholas S. Lee
    nlee@bdl-iplaw.com
    Benjamin A. Campbell
    bcampbell@bdl-iplaw.com
    Sameeul Haque
    shaque@bdl-iplaw.com
    BISHOP DIEHL & LEE, LTD.
    1475 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 800
    Schaumburg, IL 60173
    Tel.: (847) 969-9123
    Fax: (847) 969-9124

    Counsel for Plaintiff, Hong Kong Xingtai


    International Trade Co. LTD.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy