TRO Case
Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd v. THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, and UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A",
Patent Infringement
Case No.
1:2026-cv-06031
Filing Date
5/22/2026
Plaintiff
Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd
Court
Illinois Northern District Court
6/10/2026
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue two separate defendants in this single suit alleging infringement of a patent for the ornamental design of a bed frame, 1. But such joinder appears to run afoul of 35 U.S.C. § 299, which provides that "parties that are accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants. only if-- (1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising 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 of the same accused product or process; and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action." Id. § 299(a). The statute specifically provides that "accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants. based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit." Id. § 299(b). Plaintiff lumps defendants together and makes no attempt to justify joining the two seemingly unrelated defendants in this single suit. Additionally, Plaintiff's allegations concerning personal jurisdiction also fall far short of establishing the "deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market in a forum state," that may support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. See uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff alleges that defendants "have purposefully directed business activities toward the United States and this Judicial District by operating fully interactive e-commerce storefronts that are accessible to Illinois residents, offer products for sale to Illinois residents, accept payment from U.S. consumers, and offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois," and that, on information and belief, defendants "have advertised, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported Unauthorized Products into the United States, including into this Judicial District." 1 15-16. As the Seventh Circuit cautioned in Advanced Tactical, "if having an interactive website were enough in situations like this one, there is no limiting principlea plaintiff could sue everywhere. Such a result would violate the principles on which Walden and Daimler rest. Having an 'interactive website' (which hardly rules out anything in 2014 [and less in 2026]) should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible. To hold otherwise would offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). See also Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (holding that screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by a consumer located in Illinois "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). Plaintiff must have a good faith factual and legal basis to allege that each defendant has, in fact, shipped infringing products to residents in Illinois, and not just in connection with Plaintiff's test buys. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"). For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint 1 without prejudice and denies as moot Plaintiff's motion to seal 2. Because the deficiencies in the complaint also undermine any likelihood of success on the merits, the Court also denies Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 6. The Court also denies Plaintiff's motion for alternative service 7 because it fails to show "reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the defendant's mailing address," see Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., No. 25-2205, 2026 WL 1502198, at *4 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026) (citing NBA Props., Inc. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A", 549 F. Supp. 3d 790, 796 (N.D. Ill. 2021)). If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to cure the deficiencies noted in this order, it may do so by 7/8/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice.
6/3/2026
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, and UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A", by Nitin Kaushik For Amzon Store Belle-Direct
5/27/2026
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.
5/27/2026
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1).
5/22/2026
MOTION by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd for Alternative Service
5/22/2026
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd by Alexander Warden
5/22/2026
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd (Exhibit B) regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd to seal Schedule A, Exhibit B, and the Unredacted Complaint [2]
5/22/2026
MOTION by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd for temporary restraining order
5/22/2026
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd (Schedule A) regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd to seal Schedule A, Exhibit B, and the Unredacted Complaint [2]
5/22/2026
CIVIL Cover Sheet
5/22/2026
MOTION by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd to seal Schedule A, Exhibit B, and the Unredacted Complaint
5/22/2026
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd (Unredacted Complaint) regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Zhongshan Besway Technology Co., Ltd to seal Schedule A, Exhibit B, and the Unredacted Complaint [2]
5/22/2026