元元跨境YUAN KUA JING · TRO咨询案件
首页›案件列表›2025-cv-11694
新立案商标历史数据

Bright Hand LLC

Bright Hand LLC

最后更新2026/08/01 11:10

案件基本信息

2025-cv-11694
案件号
2025-cv-11694
起诉日期
2025/09/26
原告
—
维权品牌
ILUMINATING ASSEMBLY 发光手套
原告律所
Nicholas S. Lee Law
法院
伊利诺伊州北区地方法院
州
—
法官
—

案件进展 Docket

16 条记录
·

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: After reviewing Plaintiff's motion, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [20]. The Court finds that the current record does not, as Plaintiff suggests, contain clear evidence establishing that Defendant purposefully directed its activities at Illinois. Plaintiff points to specific portions of Exhibit 2 filed under seal (Dkt. 15-2) as shown on a screenshot of an Amazon webpage: (1) the date the allegedly infringing product was "last purchased," and (2) an Illinois zip code apparently associated with the default shipping address on the Amazon account. Exhibit 2 does not indicate anywhere that the product, when "last purchased," was in fact delivered to that zip code or to any other address in Illinois. Plaintiff asks the Court, without verification, to draw an inference that the accused product was shipped to the zip code shown in Exhibit 2. Until Plaintiff fills that gap in the record (which it may do if it chooses to file an amended complaint), Plaintiff fails to meet the standard for personal jurisdiction over Defendant/s applied in this type of "Schedule A" case. See NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 619 (7th Cir. 2022). The Court's Order denying Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [19] stands. Presentment hearing set for 10/22/2025 is stricken. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: After reviewing Plaintiff's motion, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [20]. The Court finds that the current record does not, as Plaintiff suggests, contain clear evidence establishing that Defendant purposefully directed its activities at Illinois. Plaintiff points to specific portions of Exhibit 2 filed under seal (Dkt. 15-2) as shown on a screenshot of an Amazon webpage: (1) the date the allegedly infringing product was "last purchased," and (2) an Illinois zip code apparently associated with the default shipping address on the Amazon account. Exhibit 2 does not indicate anywhere that the product, when "last purchased," was in fact delivered to that zip code or to any other address in Illinois. Plaintiff asks the Court, without verification, to draw an inference that the accused product was shipped to the zip code shown in Exhibit 2. Until Plaintiff fills that gap in the record (which it may do if it chooses to file an amended complaint), Plaintiff fails to meet the standard for personal jurisdiction over Defendant/s applied in this type of "Schedule A" case. See NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 619 (7th Cir. 2022). The Court's Order denying Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [19] stands. Presentment hearing set for 10/22/2025 is stricken. Mailed notice.

·

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC for reconsideration regarding order on motion to seal document, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, [19]

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC for reconsideration regarding order on motion to seal document, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, [19]

·

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: After reviewing Plaintiff's motion and informed by the presentation of the motion by Plaintiff's counsel, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [7]. The Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have made clear that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits the issuance of ex parte TROs, "the circumstances in which an ex parte order should be granted are extremely limited," Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314 (7th Cir. 1984), because "our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 94 S. Ct. 1113, 39 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1974)). While this Court and other courts in this district regularly issue such orders in cases involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement by unknown defendants, such equitable relief is only granted when the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) its case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). In the present case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants are purposefully directing their products to Illinois residents to satisfy personal jurisdiction. See NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 624 (7th Cir. 2022) (characterizing defendant's actions as purposeful after defendant fulfilled an Amazon order for the infringing product placed by plaintiff's investigator and plaintiff provided proof of delivery of the product). Though Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are selling and shipping infringing products in Illinois, Plaintiff's filings do not show that any order was placed nor that Defendants made any shipment. Absent such a showing, it is not clear why this litigation is properly brought in Illinois as opposed to any other jurisdiction such that the Court should grant extraordinary equitable relief. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint with multiple defendants, Plaintiff must demonstrate in the amended complaint or by re-filing a supplemental memorandum why joinder of multiple defendants is appropriate. Plaintiff's motion to seal and leave to file excess pages are stricken as moot. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: After reviewing Plaintiff's motion and informed by the presentation of the motion by Plaintiff's counsel, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [7]. The Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have made clear that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits the issuance of ex parte TROs, "the circumstances in which an ex parte order should be granted are extremely limited," Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314 (7th Cir. 1984), because "our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 94 S. Ct. 1113, 39 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1974)). While this Court and other courts in this district regularly issue such orders in cases involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement by unknown defendants, such equitable relief is only granted when the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) its case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). In the present case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants are purposefully directing their products to Illinois residents to satisfy personal jurisdiction. See NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 624 (7th Cir. 2022) (characterizing defendant's actions as purposeful after defendant fulfilled an Amazon order for the infringing product placed by plaintiff's investigator and plaintiff provided proof of delivery of the product). Though Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are selling and shipping infringing products in Illinois, Plaintiff's filings do not show that any order was placed nor that Defendants made any shipment. Absent such a showing, it is not clear why this litigation is properly brought in Illinois as opposed to any other jurisdiction such that the Court should grant extraordinary equitable relief. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint with multiple defendants, Plaintiff must demonstrate in the amended complaint or by re-filing a supplemental memorandum why joinder of multiple defendants is appropriate. Plaintiff's motion to seal and leave to file excess pages are stricken as moot. Mailed notice.

·

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

·

Withdraw as Attorney

Withdraw as Attorney

·

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC

·

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing held on 10/8/2025. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal 3, motion to seal complaint 4, ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery 7, and motion for alternative service 9 are taken under advisement. Counsel is to submit a proposed order in Word format to the Court's proposed order email at Proposed_Order_Coleman@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing held on 10/8/2025. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal 3, motion to seal complaint 4, ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery 7, and motion for alternative service 9 are taken under advisement. Counsel is to submit a proposed order in Word format to the Court's proposed order email at Proposed_Order_Coleman@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice.

·

SUPPLEMENT to text entry, 12 addressing the propriety of joinder

SUPPLEMENT to text entry, 12 addressing the propriety of joinder

·

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 2 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. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 2 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. Mailed notice.

·

NOTICE of Motion by Nicholas S. Lee for presentment of motion to seal document 4, motion for miscellaneous relief 9, motion for temporary restraining order 7 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/8/2025 at 10:00 AM.

NOTICE of Motion by Nicholas S. Lee for presentment of motion to seal document 4, motion for miscellaneous relief 9, motion for temporary restraining order 7 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/8/2025 at 10:00 AM.

·

NOTICE of Motion by Nicholas S. Lee for presentment of motion to seal document 4, motion for miscellaneous relief 9, motion for temporary restraining order 7 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/1/2025 at 10:00 AM.

NOTICE of Motion by Nicholas S. Lee for presentment of motion to seal document 4, motion for miscellaneous relief 9, motion for temporary restraining order 7 before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/1/2025 at 10:00 AM.

·

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC for Alternative Service

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC for Alternative Service

·

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC for temporary restraining order (ex parte)

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC for temporary restraining order (ex parte)

·

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC to seal document complaint[1]

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC to seal document complaint[1]

·

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC to seal

MOTION by Plaintiff Bright Hand LLC to seal

·

COMPLAINT (Verified) filed by Bright Hand LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24116647.

COMPLAINT (Verified) filed by Bright Hand LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24116647.