Erik Diedrichsen v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A

1:24-cv-02773 N.D. Ill. Closed 0 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 5 Apr 2024 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 13 Nov 2025, with 0 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: default judgment.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
Case no.
1:24-cv-02773
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ill.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Illinois
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
5 Apr 2024 – 13 Nov 2025
Duration
587 days
Basis of termination
Default Judgment
Products & marks
None recorded
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:24-cv-02773, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Entry ofDefaultand DefaultJudgment 85 . Enter DefaultJudgment Order. Statutory damagesareawarded pereach distinct DefaultingDefendantas indicated in the order. Theten-thousand-dollar ($10,000.00) surety bond posted by Plaintiffs in connectionwith thetemporary restraining orderentered in thiscase 17 is hereby released to Plaintiffs or theircounsel, Bishop &Diehl, Ltd. The Clerk ofthe Court is directed to return thesurety bond previously deposited with the Clerk ofthe Court to Plaintiffs or their counsel. Civilcaseterminated"

Case 1:24-cv-02773 · N.D. Ill. · closed 13 November 2025
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:24-cv-02773?

1:24-cv-02773 is a patent infringement action brought by Erik Diedrichsen against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A, filed on 5 Apr 2024 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 13 November 2025.

How was case 1:24-cv-02773 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is default judgment. The termination text reads: "The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Entry ofDefaultand DefaultJudgment 85 . Enter DefaultJudgment Order. Statutory damagesareawarded pereach distinct DefaultingDefendantas indicated in the order. Theten-thousand-dollar ($10,000.00) surety bond posted by Plaintiffs in connectionwith thetemporary restraining orderentered in thiscase 17 is hereby released to Plaintiffs or theircounsel, Bishop &Diehl, Ltd. The Clerk ofthe Court is directed to return thesurety bond previously deposited with the Clerk ofthe Court to Plaintiffs or their counsel. Civilcaseterminated"

What does default judgment mean?

A default judgment is entered when a defendant does not appear or does not defend the action.

How long did case 1:24-cv-02773 take?

587 calendar days, from filing on 5 Apr 2024 to closure on 13 November 2025.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:24-cv-02773?

Chief Judge Franklin U. Valderrama presided. Benjamin Adam Campbell, Edward L. Bishop, Nicholas S. Lee and Sameeul Haque are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Erik Diedrichsen.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:24-cv-02773 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:24-cv-02773 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.