|
[+]
1
|
2026-05-13 |
COMPLAINT filed by Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25111127. |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Supplement Schedule A |
|
[+]
2
|
2026-05-13 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. regarding complaint[1] |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
(Supplement Schedule A) |
|
[+]
3
|
2026-05-13 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
|
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. |
|
4
|
2026-05-13 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. CORRECTED regarding complaint[1] |
|
5
|
2026-05-14 |
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC |
|
6
|
2026-05-14 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. for temporary restraining order and expedited discovery |
|
7
|
2026-05-14 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. for temporary restraining order Amended |
|
8
|
2026-05-14 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. Declaration of Fangli Huang |
|
9
|
2026-05-14 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. to seal document exhibit[4], exhibit[2], sealed document[8] |
|
[+]
10
|
2026-05-14 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Union Imagination Tech. Co. Ltd. for service by publication (electronic) |
|
|
Declaration of Adam E. Urbanczyk |
|
[+]
11
|
2026-05-14 |
DECLARATION of Adam E. Urbanczyk regarding motion for temporary restraining order[7] re: Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
12
|
2026-05-15 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: The plaintiff's motion to seal [9] is granted. Documents and exhibits listed therein, provisionally under seal pending order, are permitted to remain under seal. The plaintiff's original motion for a TRO [6] is denied as moot in light of the plaintiff's amended motions for a TRO [7] and electronic service [10]. Those motions are taken under advisement. The plaintiff's exhibit [8-3] only demonstrates that infringing sales took place in Illinois with respect to one copyright. "'There is no pendent or supplemental theory of specific personal jurisdiction,' so when a plaintiff asserts multiple claims, 'personal jurisdiction over the defendant must be established as to each claim asserted.'" Lexington Ins. Co. v. Zurich Ins. (Taiwan) Ltd., 286 F. Supp. 3d 982, 987 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (quoting MG Design Assocs., Corp. v. Costar Realty Info., Inc., 224 F.Supp.3d 621, 629 (N.D. Ill. 2016)). By 6/5/2026, the plaintiff is directed to supplement its motion with proof that sales actually took place in Illinois with respect to each asserted copyright. The plaintiff must show that the product was actually sold to Illinois residents, such as proof of payment, shipping receipts, or other evidence. Mailed notice |
