CAO Group, Inc. v. Karaka LLC d/b/a The DoubleY Brands

I'll research this case and the parties. Let me start with parallel searches on the key elements.

Good initial findings. Now let me dig into the docket details, the defendant's identity, the accused product, and the patent family specifics.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. CAO Group, Inc. is a Utah corporation headquartered at 4628 West Skyhawk Drive, West Jordan, Utah, founded in 2000 by Dr. Densen Cao — a named co-inventor on the asserted patents (with CAO chemist Steven D. Jensen). CAO is an operating company, not an NPE/PAE: it makes and sells dental and oral-health products, including its own "Sheer White!" whitening-strip line, which the complaint alleges is marked with the asserted patents and listed on CAO's website to provide notice. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies CAO as a "product company" asserter. Plaintiff's counsel were Edward L. Bishop, Nicholas S. Lee, Benjamin Adam Campbell, and Sameeul Haque of Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. (Schaumburg, IL). The defendant, Karaka LLC d/b/a The DoubleY Brands, is an Illinois LLC with its principal place of business in Chicago (Compl. ¶15) — a meaningful contrast with CAO's typical anonymous-seller defendants. It retained real defense counsel quickly: Terance A. Gonsalves entered an appearance locally (Doc. 10, Aug. 13, 2024) and Dana M. Zottola of Alston & Bird moved pro hac vice (Doc. 14, Aug. 19, 2024). Third-party seller-intelligence data (unverified against the docket) describes Karaka LLC as an Amazon private-label/D2C seller at 444 W. Lake St., Ste. 1700, Chicago, operating storefronts under brands such as NumNum, HATHASPACE, County Line Kitchen, Swiss Safe and DOCA, and also trading as "Heyday Co." / "Heyday."

The accused product and patents. The accused instrumentality is a hydrogen-peroxide whitening strip — the available complaint excerpt identifies the "Boka Bright + White Sensitive Smile Whitening Strips," alleged to infringe at least claim 1 of each asserted patent, with a claim chart in Exhibit G (not publicly filed). Caveat: that product name comes from a third-party AI-generated summary of the complaint, and I could not independently confirm a Boka–Karaka relationship or whether "Boka" in the complaint refers to an authorized or unauthorized resale channel; this should be treated as unconfirmed. The complaint pleads five patents in the same "Peroxide Gel Compositions" family (2006 priority), all covering a dried, gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic peroxide gel on a flexible backing strip that conforms to the dental arch without cracking or coalescing, using poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or PVP as the thickening agent: U.S. 10,603,259 (Mar. 31, 2020); U.S. 10,646,419 (May 12, 2020); U.S. 11,219,582 (Jan. 11, 2022); U.S. 11,826,444 and U.S. 11,826,445 (both Nov. 28, 2023). This resolves the open question flagged earlier: the '444 was in fact pleaded — Complaint ¶¶41 and 87 (issued Nov. 28, 2023; App. No. 17/722,xxx filed Apr. 15, 2022; Examiner Lezah Roberts, Art Unit 1612; estimated expiry Feb. 8, 2026, 20 years from the 2006 priority). One-line sketches: the '259/'419/'582 are the earlier-issued species of the same strip-plus-gel genus; the '444 and '445 are the two latest continuations issued the same day, differing principally in claim wording around the whitening agent/thickener combination and the "non-coalescent, visco-elastic" limitation. (Patsnap's "10 patents asserted" count is inflated by unrelated CAO laser patents — 7,485,116; 8,337,097; 8,834,457; 8,961,040 — that are not part of the complaint; treat 5 as correct.)

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed June 13, 2024 in the N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, randomly assigned to Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins (Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan designated) (Doc. 1; Doc. 7). Venue was straightforward: the defendant is an Illinois company in Chicago, so 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) residency applied — though tellingly, the complaint's ¶2 venue paragraph is boilerplate language lifted from CAO's Schedule A complaints about "fully interactive e-commerce stores" targeting Illinois consumers, a template mismatch with a named Chicago LLC. The case never reached the pleadings: after an initial status hearing set for Aug. 28, 2024 (Doc. 7), the docket reflects five successive extensions expressly "to allow the parties to explore resolution" (Docs. 11, 13, 16, 17, 18/19, 20, 21), pushing the answer deadline to Nov. 18, 2024. Karaka never answered. On Dec. 18, 2024, CAO filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice dismissing with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs — the steady drumbeat of settlement-driven continuances plus a with-prejudice dismissal strongly implies a confidential resolution (license, coexistence, or cessation of sales), though no settlement document is public. The case matters less as a merits dispute than as a window into CAO's dual-track enforcement campaign: targeted suits against named companies (this case; CAO Group v. GuruNanda, No. 8:25-cv-02074 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 12, 2025)) run alongside mass Schedule A John Doe sweeps against e-commerce sellers in N.D. Ill. — No. 1:24-cv-01211 (filed Feb. 12, 2024), No. 1:25-cv-8205 (filed July 18, 2025, Judge Manish S. Shah; default judgment entered Oct. 21, 2025), and No. 1:25-cv-12503 (filed Oct. 13, 2025, Judge Edmond E. Chang). Cross-border Amazon-seller publications flagged this docket as a warning to sellers ("nearly 90 stores sued"). Two structural facts drive the urgency: the entire asserted family expires Feb. 8, 2026, leaving only ~20 months of term when this suit was filed; and no IPR/PGR challenge to the '444 (or its siblings) was located as of today, so the patents died of natural term rather than PTAB invalidity.

Sourcing notes / open items. Confirmed from the Justia docket and Patexia document list: filing and dismissal dates, judge, counsel, and the extension sequence. Confirmed from the complaint text that the '444 was pleaded. Not confirmed: the exact accused product name (single AI-generated secondary source); whether the dismissal followed a written settlement; the identity/affiliates of Karaka LLC and any DoubleY Brands storefront beyond third-party seller-scraper data; and any pending IPR — my PTAB search was cut short, so "no IPR" should be read as "none found," not "none exists."

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the patent.

Let me pull the full docket and check for any PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents.

Snapshot

This is a short, one-defendant, e-commerce patent case that never got past the pleadings. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice of substance, no Markman, no discovery, and no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patent. It ended by unilateral notice of dismissal roughly six months after filing, after three successive agreed extensions of the answer deadline that the docket itself attributes to settlement discussions.

One correction to the prior summary: the '444 patent was pleaded. U.S. Pat. No. 11,826,444 is described at Compl. ¶¶ 41–45 (issued 2023-11-28 from Appl. No. 17/659,473, filed 2022-04-15), and the complaint asserts at least claim 1 against the accused whitening strips. The complaint actually asserted six patents, not one:

All six are continuations from a common 2006 priority application and share substantively identical specifications — a point CAO pleaded expressly (Compl. ¶ 34). The Patsnap/Patexia "10 asserted patents" figure appears to be an aggregator artifact; the complaint pleads six. Sources: Complaint, ECF 1; '444 patent text.

---

Chronological developments

2024-06-13 — Complaint filed (ECF 1). CAO Group (Utah) sued Karaka LLC d/b/a The DoubleY Brands (Illinois LLC, Chicago) in N.D. Ill., assigned to Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan designated. Jury demand. Seven attachments (Ex. A–G), with Ex. G being the claim charts. Jurisdiction and venue were premised on Karaka's "fully interactive e-commerce stores" targeting Illinois consumers (Compl. ¶ 2) — the standard Schedule-A-style theory CAO has used across its enforcement campaign. Relief sought: injunction under § 283 plus damages.

2024-06-14 — Patent report mailed to USPTO (ECF 6).

2024-06-20 — LR 3.4 patent-claims notice (ECF 9) and LR 3.2 affiliate disclosure (ECF 8).

2024-07-16 — Parallel DJ action filed against CAO. Ranir LLC (Perrigo subsidiary) filed a declaratory-judgment action in D. Utah, No. 2:24-cv-00498-RJS, seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of CAO's teeth-whitening patents, pleading Ranir's own 2002-era prior formulation and its 2004 published application as prior art. This is the strategically significant parallel event: while Karaka was a small e-commerce target, CAO was simultaneously facing a well-funded invalidity counteroffensive on the same family. (Ranir complaint)

2024-08-13 — Karaka appears. Attorney appearance by Terance A. Gonsalves (ECF 10), immediately followed by an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer (ECF 11). Dana M. Zottola (Alston & Bird) moved pro hac vice on 2024-08-19 (ECF 14, granted ECF 15).

2024-08-14 → 2024-10-17 — Four successive extensions of the answer deadline, each tied to settlement. This is the entire substantive "litigation" in the case:

• 2024-08-14 (ECF 13): answer due 2024-09-03; the 2024-08-28 status hearing stricken and reset to 2024-09-17.
• 2024-08-28 (ECF 16), granted 2024-08-29 (ECF 17): extension "to allow the parties to explore resolution of the matter"; the 2024-09-17 status hearing struck entirely and the initial status report excused; answer due 2024-10-03 "unless the parties notify the Court before that date that they have resolved the matter."
• 2024-10-03 (ECF 18), granted same day (ECF 19): extension "to allow for continued settlement discussions"; answer due 2024-10-17.
• 2024-10-16 (ECF 20), granted 2024-10-17 (ECF 21, by Judge Beth W. Jantz): answer due 2024-11-18.

Docket text via Patexia document list and Justia docket.

2024-12-18 — Case terminated by voluntary dismissal. CAO filed a "Notice of Dismissal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)" and the case closed. Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed, CAO could dismiss as of right without a court order — consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

---

What did not happen (and why that matters)

• No answer and no counterclaims. Karaka never pleaded. That forecloses any estoppel or fee-shifting posture and means no invalidity or inequitable-conduct defense was ever formally joined in this case.
• No motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment. No § 1404(a) transfer motion was filed despite the Utah DJ action and CAO's Utah residence — Karaka chose delay-plus-settlement over a venue fight.
• No Markman. No scheduling order, no discovery plan, no claim-construction exchange ever issued. The court never construed any term of the '444 patent.
• No discovery milestones. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions were ordered. The claim charts (Ex. G) were the only infringement theory ever served.
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 motion.
• No appeal — there was nothing appealable, since a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is without prejudice and non-final absent a separate judgment.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

None on the '444 patent. I found no IPR, PGR, or reexamination petition against U.S. 11,826,444 (or its siblings) arising from or relating to this case. Patent-data aggregators list no validity challenge on the family (Patsnap lists "Validity challenges: None recorded" for the '259). Note that CAO is a petitioner in older PTAB matters (e.g., IPR2014-00796 against P&G's '569 patent), but that is unrelated litigation history and not a challenge to the '444. If a petition was filed in the 2024–2025 window by Ranir or another competitor, it is not indexed in the sources I could reach — treat this as "no publicly recorded challenge," not as a verified negative. There was accordingly no IPR-driven stay motion in this case.

---

Final disposition and present posture

Terminated 2024-12-18. Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), recorded by aggregators as "Dismissed – Voluntarily." Duration: 188 days. Because the dismissal was by notice rather than stipulation or court order, the record does not disclose whether it was with or without prejudice — the Patexia docket list I could access ends at ECF 21 (2024-10-17), and I could not retrieve the text of the dismissal notice itself or confirm a separate settlement agreement or consent judgment. Given three consecutive extensions expressly granted "to allow for continued settlement discussions," a negotiated resolution (likely a license or covenant not to sue) is the strong inference, but the terms are not public and I have not verified them.

---

Analytic take-aways

1. This case is a funnel, not a fight. Karaka was one node in a broader N.D. Ill. campaign by CAO against e-commerce sellers of whitening strips premised on the same six-patent family — see CAO Group v. Schedule A cases at 1:24-cv-01211, 1:25-cv-04054 (voluntary dismissal 2025-08-11), 1:25-cv-08205 (default judgment entered 2025-10-21), and 1:25-cv-14512 (TRO entered 2026-01-08, converted to preliminary injunction 2026-04-08). The named-defendant case here fits the pattern of quick, low-visibility settlements.

2. The '444 patent's runway was very short, which shaped leverage. It carries a terminal disclaimer and expires 2026-02-08 (20 years from the 2006 priority date), leaving only ~14 months of infringement exposure when suit was filed. That sharply caps damages and, combined with the six near-identical continuations, exposes the family to obviousness-type double patenting and to a single invalidity theory taking out all six patents — exactly the theory Ranir was developing in D. Utah.

3. The most consequential development was in Utah, not Illinois. Ranir's 2024-07-16 DJ complaint attacking the family's validity is the event that mattered for the patent portfolio; the Karaka case was resolved on terms before any of that pressure could be tested in a courtroom.

4. The prior summary's uncertainty about the '444 patent should be retired. Patexia's document list was right: the '444 patent was pleaded as an asserted patent (Compl. ¶¶ 41–45) with claim 1 charted in Exhibit G; the excerpt referencing the '259 patent was simply one of six patent sections.

**

I'll research this docket and identify plaintiff's counsel of record.

Good — I have the docket skeleton. Let me verify the full appearance list and firm details.

Let me pull the full docket via CourtListener and confirm each attorney's appearance and role.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — CAO Group, Inc. v. Karaka LLC, No. 1:24-cv-04903 (N.D. Ill.)

Bottom line: CAO Group was represented throughout by a single Illinois IP boutique — Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. of Schaumburg, Illinois. Four attorneys are tied to the plaintiff on the docket: Edward L. Bishop (the senior partner who signed and filed the complaint), Nicholas S. Lee, Benjamin Adam Campbell, and Sameeul Haque. There was no in-house appearance, no pro hac vice admission, and no separate local-counsel arrangement — the firm served as both lead and local counsel because it is an Illinois firm.

Attorneys

Firm and office (for all four): Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., 1475 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 800, Schaumburg, IL 60173; T: (847) 969-9123; F: (847) 969-9124. Direct emails as they appear in the firm's N.D. Ill. filings: ebishop@bdl-iplaw.com, nlee@bdl-iplaw.com, bcampbell@bdl-iplaw.com, shaque@bdl-iplaw.com. (Some third-party directories — e.g., TRO101 — list a 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1200, Chicago address for Mr. Lee; the address used on the papers in this case and in the related CAO actions is the Schaumburg office.)

One-line experience notes (sourced)

• Edward L. Bishop — Founding/shareholder attorney of Bishop Diehl & Lee and CAO Group's long-standing outside patent enforcement counsel; he is the filer of record on CAO's complaints in this and the companion N.D. Ill. campaign, and he and Mr. Campbell formally withdrew from the lead companion case, CAO Group v. Schedule A Defendants, No. 1:24-cv-01211 (N.D. Ill.), in March 2025 (Dkt. 138, granted). Note: I could not locate a published firm bio for Mr. Bishop; the "founding partner" characterization rests on the firm's name and his role as complaint filer rather than a verified profile page.
• Nicholas S. Lee — Partner; the most active signatory for CAO in this case family, including declarations filed in support of TRO/sealing relief in the parallel Schedule "A" actions (e.g., No. 1:24-cv-01211; No. 1:25-cv-04054, Dkts. 8–12; No. 1:25-cv-08205) and continuing as CAO's filer through the 2025–2026 cases (1:25-cv-12503, 1:25-cv-14512).
• Benjamin Adam Campbell — Partner since 2024 (associate at the firm 2012–2024); registered U.S. patent practitioner (USPTO 2007) with admissions in N.D. Ill., 7th, 11th, Federal and 9th Circuits; per his published AIA professional profile, his practice covers all phases of patent/trademark litigation including Markman, Daubert and preliminary-injunction practice, with substantial e-commerce/marketplace enforcement work. He is a co-withdrawing attorney with Mr. Bishop in No. 1:24-cv-01211.
• Sameeul Haque — Firm attorney who handles the TRO, sealing and notice-of-motion practice in the firm's Schedule "A" docket; appeared for CAO here and in No. 1:24-cv-01211 (where he filed the joint status reports and the March 2025 extension motions after Bishop and Campbell withdrew).

Important qualifications

1. Appearance ambiguity for Bishop. The public docket extracts I could access (Justia, Patexia) show discrete appearance entries only for Lee (Dkt. 3), Campbell (Dkt. 4) and Haque (Dkt. 5). Bishop's connection to the case is documented through his filing of Dkts. 1–2 and PACER's "Represented By" field, but I could not verify a standalone appearance entry under Rule 83.17 in the excerpted docket. Treat his formal appearance status as probable but not independently confirmed from the docket text I retrieved.
2. No sealed or withheld counsel. Nothing in this docket was sealed as to counsel; the sealing issues in the CAO case family arise in the Schedule "A" cases (defendant-identifying Schedule A and TRO exhibits), not here. The Exhibit G claim charts referenced in the complaint were not publicly filed, but that pertains to evidence, not to counsel.
3. Nothing has "not yet appeared." The case closed on 12/18/2024 via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs, before Karaka answered — so the four appearances listed above are the complete universe of plaintiff's counsel. (For completeness: Karaka was represented by Terance A. Gonsalves and Dana M. Zottola of Alston & Bird LLP — Dkt. 10, appearance 8/13/2024.)
4. Relevance to the '444 question in the prior section. The complaint (Dkt. 1, Exhs. A–G) pleaded a six-patent family — the '036, '259, '419, '582, '444 and '445 patents — and did expressly assert the '444 patent at ¶¶41–43 and ¶87. That resolves the open question flagged in the existing summary: the '444 patent was pleaded, not merely listed by Patexia. The same Bishop Diehl & Lee team is the through-line across CAO's enforcement campaign, which matters because the firm's filings are the best source for reconstructing CAO's claim-chart theories across cases.

Sources: Justia docket, CAO Group, Inc. v. Karaka LLC, No. 1:24-cv-04903 (N.D. Ill.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv04903/[460115](/patent/460115); Patexia case documents/summary — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CAO-Group-Inc-v-Karaka-LLC-d-b-a-The-DoubleY-Brands-id-[200164](/patent/200164)/documents; Complaint, Dkt. 1 (text via Ex Parte AI lab) — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4511585](/patent/4511585)/1-24-cv-04903_complaint_exparte.pdf; firm signature block and contact details from CAO Group's N.D. Ill. filings (e.g., No. 1:24-cv-01211, Dkt. 103) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.[455246](/patent/455246)/gov.uscourts.ilnd.455246.103.0.pdf; Benjamin A. Campbell professional profile (AIAL) — https://www.aipla.org/docs/default-source/adr-neutrals/campbell_benjamin-20260519.pdf.

I'll build on the counsel facts already established and dig into firm affiliations, offices, and experience for each attorney of record.

Now let me verify the actual docket entries and appearances, and pin down Gonsalves's Alston office.

Let me confirm the full appearance list and Zottola's office/bar details.

Counsel of Record for Karaka LLC d/b/a The DoubleY Brands

Building on the appearances already noted, the defendant's entire defense team came from one firm — Alston & Bird LLP — with a Chicago-based Illinois-bar partner serving the local-counsel function and a patent specialist from the firm's IP group appearing pro hac vice. No separate local firm, and no in-house counsel, ever appeared.

Docket basis. Doc. 10 is styled simply "ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Karaka LLC by Terance A Gonsalves" — the N.D. Ill. form does not designate "lead" vs. "local" counsel, so the role labels above are my characterization drawn from the filings, not verbatim docket text. Every substantive defense filing after that point was signed by Zottola: the extension motions at Docs. 16 (Aug. 28), 18 (Oct. 3), and 20 (Oct. 16, 2024), each granted at Docs. 17, 19, and 21. Gonsalves signed only the first extension (Doc. 11, Aug. 13, 2024). That signature pattern — Illinois-bar partner appears and files the first extension, out-of-state patent specialist takes over the docket — is the standard N.D. Ill. pro hac vice choreography. (Patexia docket; Justia docket)

Firm-level observations worth carrying forward.

• Alston & Bird opened its Chicago office in July 2024 — one month after this complaint was filed — and the press release announcing it named "longtime Alston & Bird Litigation partners Tery Gonsalves and Chaka Patterson" as Chicago-based. So Karaka's defense was staffed out of a brand-new office, with the appearance filed about a month after the office's launch. (Alston & Bird press release, July 9, 2024)
• The Gonsalves/Alston pairing is confirmed from multiple independent sources, not just the docket: his Alston bio (Atlanta/Chicago, Litigation & Trial Practice Group, DePaul J.D. 2000) and his Illinois bar number appearing on prior N.D. Ill. filings, e.g. Nokia of America Corp. v. —, No. 1:20-cv-02642 (N.D. Ill.), where he appeared alongside Alston Atlanta counsel. (Alston bio PDF)
• Zottola is the patent-side hire, and her other 2024–25 work ran in parallel with this case: she was Nokia's patent-owner counsel in the Amazon IPR series decided/docketed in the same months Karaka's extensions were being filed. That is a plausible explanation for why this case saw three extension motions and no answer — the defense was staffed by a patent group with a heavy concurrent PTAB load, and the parties were already in settlement mode.

Explicit caveats / open items.

• I could not retrieve the text of Doc. 14 (the PHV motion) to confirm the firm address Zottola listed, nor verify whether a separate appearance form for her exists as an unlisted docket entry (the Patexia extract jumps from Doc. 11 to Doc. 14). Justia's docket snapshot is stale as of June 20, 2024 and does not reach the defense appearances at all, so the appearance list above rests on the Patexia document list plus Patsnap's counsel-of-record field, which agree as to exactly two names.
• No third attorney, no local firm, and no in-house counsel appears in any source I could access. If Karaka had additional Alston attorneys working behind the scenes (as is typical), they never entered an appearance — nothing in the record establishes that.
• Neither attorney withdrew; both remained of record when CAO filed its Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal with prejudice on Dec. 18, 2024, so the case closed with the defense team intact and no answer, no motion to dismiss, and no invalidity contentions ever filed.