Mass joinder: Falling apart in the NDIL?
Patent – Patently-O 2024-12-11
Summary:
By Sarah Fackrell, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:24-cv-09401 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024), ECF 27.
The Northern District of Illinois’ “cottage industry,” Schedule A litigation, depends on mass joinder of defendants. Plaintiffs accuse dozens, hundreds—sometimes over a thousand—defendants of IP infringement in a single case. This allows the plaintiffs to save money on filing fees and maximize this litigation model’s profitability.
But lately, a number of judges are pushing back on joinder and raising that issue sua sponte.
For example, Judge Blakey recently highlighted the gap between the allegations and supporting evidence in a multi-defendant infringement case. The plaintiff had alleged that the 18 defendants were properly joined because they ”share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” The complaint further stated that “the Infringing Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another.” However, Judge Blakely found these allegations were directly contradicted by the plaintiff’s own evidence – the screenshot exhibits attached to the pleadings.