|
[+]
1
|
2026-03-05 |
COMPLAINT filed by Robert Bosch LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24807441. |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
8
|
2026-03-05 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
|
2
|
2026-03-05 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
3
|
2026-03-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Michael A. Hierl |
|
4
|
2026-03-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac |
|
5
|
2026-03-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
|
6
|
2026-03-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by John Wilson |
|
7
|
2026-03-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller |
|
9
|
2026-03-05 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Sealed Schedule A |
|
[+]
10
|
2026-03-05 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Robert Bosch LLC |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
|
|
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
|
2026-03-06 |
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
|
12
|
2026-03-06 |
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
|
13
|
2026-03-09 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion 8 to proceed under seal and for ex parte relief is denied. Proceeding under seal and ex parte relief is extraordinary. Plaintiff has not identified circumstances warranting such extraordinary relief. See generally Eicher Motors Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 25-CV-02937, 2025 WL 2299593 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025). Mailed notice. |
|
14
|
2026-03-12 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery |
|
15
|
2026-03-16 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion to conduct expedited discovery, 14, is granted subject to the following limitations. Upon Plaintiff's request, any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for the Defendant, or in connection with the Defendant Internet Store, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") (the "Third Party Providers"), shall, within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of such notice, provide to Plaintiff expedited discovery, limited to copies of documents and records in such person's or entity's possession or control sufficient to determine: the identities and locations of Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any persons acting in active concert or participation with them, including all known contact information and all associated e-mail addresses. Mailed notice. |
|
16
|
2026-04-07 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Plaintiff's Motion for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
|
17
|
2026-04-09 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion 16 for electronic service of process is granted. While a preferable means of service, the court is cognizant of the fact that physical service is not always possible. In this case, Plaintiff certifies that it has attempted, but has been unable, to obtain a physical address for defendant. In such a circumstance, a less preferable form of service is permissible. Service via email is "reasonably calculated" to be received by defendant, and it is thus adequate in this case. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S 306, 319 (1950). What's more, service via email is not barred under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Thus, plaintiff may serve process via email. Mailed notice. |
