Symmetrix Studios LLC v. The Identified on Schedule A

Summary

Symmetrix Studios sues unnamed defendants for copyright infringement in federal court.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

17:501 Copyright Infringement

Entities in this case

Parties

Symmetrix Studios LLC (plaintiff) The Defendant Identified on Schedule A (defendant)

Docket entries

1. #112026-06-16

   MAILED copyright report with order dated 6/15/2026 to Registrar, Washington DC (emc, ) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

2. #102026-06-15

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Based upon the notice of voluntary dismissal 9, the Court dismisses this matter without prejudice under Rule 41(a) and strikes all set dates and deadlines. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (evw, ) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

3. #92026-06-15

   NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Symmetrix Studios LLC (Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

4. #82026-05-14

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiffs seek to sue three separate defendants in this single copyright infringement case, see 1, [6-3]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that "defendants have infringed the same image copyrighted by the Plaintiff." 6 12. But this allegation suggests "nothing more than separate instances of infringement attributable to different defendants, not events arising out of the same transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 735 F. Supp. 3d 981, 98586 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (citing AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 11058, 752 F.3d 990, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("Committing the same type of violation in the same way does not link defendants together for the purpose of joinder."); Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-CV-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021) (collecting cases to support the observation that courts in this District "have held that plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 20's requirements by merely alleging that multiple defendants have infringed the same patent or trademark."). Moreover, Plaintiff's complaint fails to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the identified defendants. Plaintiff says nothing about where defendants may be based, and alleges only that defendants operate fully-interactive e-commerce stores and offer shipping to consumers located in Illinois, see 6 3. Although a "defendant's deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market in a forum state, accomplished through its website as well as through other contacts with the state, can be sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction," uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010), Plaintiff alleges no contacts other than the website and alleges no facts to support an inference that defendants deliberately and continuously exploited the market in Illinois. 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, 6 and denies the motion to seal 4 . 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 6/15/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Finally, because it appears that Plaintiff's counsel is a member of the general bar but not the trial bar, see 3, the Court reminds counsel that, if the case will proceed, strict compliance with LR 83.12 is expected. Mailed notice. (evw, ) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

5. #72026-05-07

   MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC (emc, ) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

6. #62026-05-06

   SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff SYMMETRIX STUDIOS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Supplement)(Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

7. #52026-05-06

   MEMORANDUM by SYMMETRIX STUDIOS LLC in support of motion to seal 4 (Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

8. #42026-05-06

   MOTION by Plaintiff SYMMETRIX STUDIOS LLC to seal (Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

9. #32026-05-06

   ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff SYMMETRIX STUDIOS LLC by Yifeng Hao (Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

10. #22026-05-06

    CIVIL Cover Sheet (Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

11. #12026-05-06

    COMPLAINT filed by SYMMETRIX STUDIOS LLC ; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25077318. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Supplement)(Hao, Yifeng) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

12. 2026-05-06

    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. (ee, )

13. 2026-05-06

    CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (ee, )

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.