CAO Group, Inc. v. GD-Whitening
1:24-cv-05129
Overview
Case Number
1:24-cv-05129
Filing Date
2024-06-20
Status
Litigation filed
Court
District Court, N.D. Illinois (ilnd)
Presiding Judge
Thomas M. Durkin
Nature of Suit
830 Patent
Jurisdiction Type
Federal Question
Cause of Action
35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demand
Both
Parties
Defendant
Plaintiff
CAO Group, Inc.
Represented By
4 Attorneys ListedBishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
Tel: +1 (847) 969-9123
Fax: +1 (847) 969-9124
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., IL
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
Tel: +1 (847) 969-9123
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., 1475 East Woodfield Road, Suite 800
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
Tel: +1 (847) 969-9123
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., 1475 East Woodfield Road, Suite 800
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
Tel: +1 (847) 969-9123
Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., 1475 East Woodfield Road
Court & Judges
Court
District Court, N.D. Illinois (ilnd)
Presiding Judge
Thomas M. Durkin
Patents Involved
No asserted patent numbers detected in initial docket filings yet.
Docket Entries
Minute entry from 24cv2411 before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Defendant zhuhai jiashu dianzishangwu youxiangongsi d/b/a GD-Whitening moves to dismiss on two grounds. R. 56 . First, GD-Whitening argues that Count IV of the Amended Complaint seeking unjust enrichment should be dismissed because it is preempted by federal patent law. Id. at 4. Plaintiff concedes this point. R. 81 at 1. GD-Whitening's motion to dismiss is thus granted as to Count IV. Second, GD-Whitening argues improper joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299. R. 56 at 6. Consistent with this Court's ruling in Tang, the Court finds that joinder is improper as to GD-Whitening. See Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 68332, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (citations omitted) (finding that the appearing defendants were improperly joined under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because "[the] case [did] not involve a swarm of counterfeiters passing off their products as those of a single plaintiff... [but rather,] it involve[d] multiple sellers of the exact same type of product allegedly infringing on one seller's... patent."). Though in Tang, the Court dismissed the appearing defendants, the Court notes that severance is a proper remedy for misjoinder under Rule 21. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see also R. 93 at 5 (GD-Whitening's reply brief). Thus, GD-Whitening's motion to dismiss is denied as to Counts I, II, and III, and Plaintiff's claims against GD-Whitening are severed. The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case as to GD-Whitening, related to this case and assigned to Judge Durkin. In this original action, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within seven days that removes GD-Whitening as a defendant and that drops Count IV as to all remaining defendants. In the severed case against GD-Whitening, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within seven days that names GD-Whitening as the sole defendant and that drops Count IV. Within fourteen days, Plaintiff and GD-Whitening shall submit a joint status report setting forth proposed dates for discovery. Mailed notice. (aee, ) (Entered: 06/20/2024)
2024-06-14
1
Second AMENDED complaint by CAO Group, Inc. against GD-Whitening (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Bishop, Edward) (Entered: 06/21/2024)
2024-06-21
1
Withdraw as Attorney
2024-07-08
1
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
2024-07-09
1