CAO Group, Inc. v. [Schedule A defendants] ("Sheer White!")

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting. Let me start with parallel searches on the parties, patents, and docket.

Good foundation. Now let me verify the docket specifics, judge, TRO, counsel, and the design patents.

Now let me verify the design patents, parallel litigation, and IPR/PTAB history.

Case Overview

Parties and posture. Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. is an operating dental-device company, not a PAE: a Utah corporation headquartered at 4628 West Skyhawk Drive, West Jordan, UT, founded in 2000 by Dr. Densen Cao (materials engineering), which commercializes dental lasers, LED curing lights, and the Sheer White! line of in-office and take-home whitening strips, and holds a portfolio CAO describes as 160+ patents worldwide. Its own products are the patent-practicing benchmark, which is why the case caption is shorthand for "Sheer White!" The defendants are the familiar Schedule A cast — individuals, LLCs, partnerships, and unincorporated associations, pleaded on information and belief to be largely foreign e-commerce sellers operating Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and AliExpress storefronts — named on a sealed Schedule A and sued in N.D. Ill.'s Eastern Division before Judge Steven C. Seeger (Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez), with Nicholas S. Lee as plaintiff's counsel (he appeared alongside Bishop Diehl & Lee and Dickinson Wright attorneys in CAO's 2024–25 waves). Venue is not really about the merits: it's the N.D. Ill. Schedule A machinery — sealed complaint and ex parte TRO practice, a $30,000 bond, and rapid account/fund freezes to force settlements. This case follows that script closely: verified sealed complaint and motion to seal (Dkt. 1), TRO signed Jan. 8, 2026 (Dkt. 12), surety bond posted Jan. 15, 2026, an ex parte motion to extend the TRO (Jan. 20, 2026), a preliminary-injunction motion (Dkt. 18, Jan. 22, 2026) granted April 8, 2026 — with the court finding all Rule 65(a) elements satisfied and converting the TRO into a PI — and a default-judgment motion as to certain defendants (Dkt. 25, Apr. 6, 2026). Rule 55(a) default was entered against at least one non-responder on April 8, 2026. In parallel, the docket shows the usual settlement churn: voluntary dismissals of Defendants #6, #10, #12, #14, #16, #22, and #24 between Jan. 30 and Apr. 24, 2026, plus a motion to enforce a settlement agreement (Mar. 21, 2026). Caveat: the docket I could review runs only through April 24, 2026 (Justia PACER extract; kjtro's tracker last updated Aug. 23, 2026), so I cannot confirm what happened to the default-judgment motion or any dollar awards after that date.

What's accused. The accused instrumentalities are third-party peroxide-based tooth-whitening strips — thin, flat, flexible film backings carrying a pre-applied, dried, adhesive gel that is marketed as "no-slip," "mess-free," and conformable to the dental arch. The theory is formulation-plus-structure: the accused gel is alleged to be "gelatinous, non-coalescent, and visco-elastic" (i.e., deforms like a gel, will not flow or merge with itself, and will not crack when the strip flexes), built on a peroxide whitening agent, a solvent such as water, and

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and any reported rulings.

Now let me look for the actual docket on CourtListener and check for any IPR proceedings.

Good — I have the core docket. Now let me pull the most recent docket activity (May–November 2026) and check the default judgment outcome.

Bottom line

This is not a merits litigation — it is a Schedule A e-commerce enforcement action that has run the standard CAO Group playbook: sealed complaint → ex parte TRO → account freeze → mass settlement/default. As of the last docket snapshot I can verify (2026-04-24), the case is active and unresolved, with a Rule 55(a) default entered against non-responding defendants and CAO's motion for default judgment still pending. No Markman, no summary judgment, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding on any asserted patent.

One immediate correction to the case metadata: PACER/Justia reflect the complaint as filed 2025-11-26, not 2025-11-16 (the 11-16 date is repeated across third-party TRO trackers but the docket and the complaint's own filing-fee receipt say 11-26). I flag this because the 11-16 date has propagated widely.

---

Chronological development log

Post-2026-04-24: I could not verify any docket activity between 2026-04-24 and today. The Justia docket explicitly states it was last retrieved 2026-04-24; a third-party tracker showing a 2026-08-23 refresh still displays no entries past Dkt. 33. So the default-judgment ruling — if entered — is not something I can confirm.

---

Analysis by category

1. Filing and initial pleadings — no answer, no counterclaims

There is no answer, no Rule 12 motion, and no counterclaim anywhere on this docket. That is the defining structural fact. Schedule A defendants are overwhelmingly foreign e-commerce sellers who do not appear. The only defendant-side engagement inferable from the record is the March 21, 2026 motion to enforce a settlement agreement (Dkt. 24), which implies at least one defendant signed, then breached, a settlement — CAO attached the agreement and email thread as exhibits. The motion's disposition is not visible in the snapshot I have; treat as unresolved/unknown.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to seal (Dkt. 4) — DENIED, 2026-01-05. This is the most legally interesting ruling in the case. Judge Seeger denied it "for the reasons stated by the Court in Zorro Productions, Inc. v. The Individuals... Identified on Schedule A (23-cv-5761)" and ordered the Schedule A unsealed. Seeger has been one of the N.D. Ill. judges most resistant to the sealed-Schedule-A convention, and this order put CAO's defendant list on the public record within six weeks of filing — accelerating the settlement/dismissal wave that followed.
• TRO → PI conversion, 2026-01-08 / 2026-04-08. The PI order expressly found "all of the requirements for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a)" satisfied and adopted the TRO's scope verbatim, excluding dismissed defendants. No written opinion; minute entry only.
• No motion to dismiss, no transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion — none appear on the docket, consistent with zero appearing defendants.

3. Claim construction

Never reached. No Markman scheduling order, no Janssen / L.R. 4.1 disclosures, no claim construction hearing or opinion. Note the complaint itself is carefully drafted to preserve this: CAO's claim charts are pleaded "without the benefit of discovery or claim construction," with express reservation to modify infringement theories.

4. Discovery milestones

No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no case management order, no discovery. The only Rule 26-adjacent event is the 2026-02-23 status report (Dkt. 23), which in this genre typically reports service/settlement status rather than discovery. Strategically, the TRO record (Cao declaration) is the entire evidentiary record.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion,

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Bottom line

Only one attorney has appeared for CAO Group in 1:25-cv-14512: Nicholas S. Lee, a Chicago-area IP litigator who acts as both lead and local counsel. There is no co-counsel, no second firm, and no in-house attorney on the appearance docket. Every substantive filing in the case — the complaint, the TRO/PI papers, the default-judgment motion, the settlement-enforcement motion, and all voluntary dismissals — is docketed to "(Lee, Nicholas)."

Counsel of record table

Sourced appearances/filings in this case: Complaint and related sealed filings (Dkt. 1–5, Nov. 26, 2025); TRO motion and memorandum (Dkt. 6–7, Dec. 1, 2025); TRO entered Dkt. 12 (Jan. 8, 2026); PI motion and Cao declaration (Dkt. 18–19, Jan. 22, 2026); PI granted and TRO converted (Dkt. 27, Apr. 8, 2026); default-judgment motion with Declarations of Dr. Densen Cao and Nicholas S. Lee (Dkt. 25–26, Apr. 6, 2026); motion to enforce settlement agreement (Dkt. 24, Mar. 21, 2026); certificate of service (Dkt. 29). Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2025cv14512/[490676](/patent/490676)

Important caveats and gaps

• Firm/address is not cleanly confirmed for this specific filing. The 1:25-cv-14512 docket sheet I can reach does not display the address block from the appearance form, and the documents themselves are largely behind the (now-denied) sealing motion. Three different addresses for Lee circulate: the Vernon Hills address shown on the 2026 CAO docket (CourtListener parties page for 1:26-cv-11795), the Schaumburg Bishop Diehl & Lee address used on earlier CAO filings/emails (e.g., Dkt. 103 email nlee@bdl-iplaw.com in 1:24-cv-01211), and 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1200, Chicago 60603 as listed by third-party TRO trackers (tro101.com). Treat the firm name as "Law Office of Nicholas S. Lee (solo practice)" with the Vernon Hills address as the best current evidence; confirm via the CM/ECF appearance form (Dkt. entry filed with the complaint) if a definitive address is needed.
• Do not assume Dickinson Wright is counsel here. Dickinson Wright and Bishop Diehl & Lee appear in CAO's broader "Sheer White!" enforcement history and are listed as historical agents by Chinese TRO-tracking sites, but neither firm has an appearance in 1:25-cv-14512.
• No co-counsel. In the earlier CAO case 1:24-cv-01211, Sameeul Haque appeared alongside Lee (and filed a declaration in support of default judgment). Haque has not appeared in this case — all entries are Lee's.
• No in-house counsel appeared. Dr. Densen Cao (CAO's founder) is a declarant and corporate witness, not an attorney of record.
• Defendants are unrepresented. Consistent with the Schedule A model, no defense counsel has appeared; the Court entered Rule 55(a) default against a non-responding defendant on Apr. 8, 2026 (Dkt. 28), and plaintiff has taken voluntary dismissals of Defendants #6, #10, #12, #14, #16, #22, and #24.
• Filing-date discrepancy: the case metadata lists filing as 2025-11-16; PACER/Justia and the Court's docket reflect November 26, 2025 as the complaint filing date (Judge Steven C. Seeger; Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez designated). Some plaintiff-side trackers repeat the Nov. 16 date.
• Sealing: the motion to seal (Dkt. 4) was denied by Judge Seeger on Jan. 5, 2026, citing Zorro Productions v. The Individuals (23-cv-5761), and the Clerk was directed to unseal Dkt. 5 — so Schedule A and the exhibits are no longer sealed, though Exhibit/Schedule A contents may still be redacted in the public version.

I found no evidence of any additional plaintiff-side attorney (appellate, PTAB, or foreign counsel) associated with this docket; if you need certainty on bar-admission status or the exact appearance-form address, the next step is pulling the "ATTORNEY Appearance" entry and the Dkt. 26 Lee declaration directly from PACER.

I'll research this docket and any appearances of defense counsel.

Bottom line

No defense counsel of record exists in this case as of today (Nov. 4, 2026). This is a "Schedule A" John Doe action: the named defendants are anonymous e-commerce sellers, and the public docket for No. 1:25-cv-14512 (N.D. Ill., Judge Steven C. Seeger) contains zero appearances, answers, Rule 12 motions, or any other filing by or on behalf of any defendant. Every substantive entry through the most recent snapshot is a plaintiff-side filing by Nicholas S. Lee. The defendants in this case are defaulting, being voluntarily dismissed after settlement, or have never appeared at all — so there is no defense attorney to name.

I want to be explicit: I found no attorney, firm, or appearance attributable to any defendant in this docket, and I will not invent one.

What the docket actually shows

Public docket (Justia mirror, last retrieved Apr. 24, 2026; cross-checked against a TRO-tracking mirror updated Aug. 23, 2026, which shows no later activity):

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2025cv14512/490676; https://kjtro.com/case/ilnd/1-25-cv-14512.html.

Note a date discrepancy worth flagging in your own work product: the case metadata gives a filing date of Nov. 16, 2025, while the PACER-derived dockets show the complaint filed Nov. 26, 2025 (several Chinese-language TRO trackers also use 11/16 or 11/26 inconsistently). The case number and judge are consistent across sources.

The only counsel of record in 1:25-cv-14512 (plaintiff side)

For completeness, since the question presumes a defense side exists:

• Nicholas S. Lee — sole attorney of record appearing on the docket; Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. (Chicago, IL). CAO Group's longstanding TRO/Schedule A counsel; he also appears for CAO in 1:24-cv-01211, 1:24-cv-04903, 1:24-cv-05129, 1:25-cv-12503 and 1:26-cv-11795.
• Related CAO matters also list Edward L. Bishop, Benjamin Adam Campbell and Sameeul Haque of Bishop Diehl & Lee as CAO counsel — but they are not entered in this case.

No in-house CAO attorney has entered an appearance in this docket.

What this means practically

1. Schedule A mechanics. The complaint sues "The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A." Defendants are identified only by seller aliases and storefronts, so there is no entity that could retain counsel at filing. Defense counsel appears only if a specific seller decides to litigate rather than default or settle.
2. Settlements do not create counsel of record. The seven voluntary dismissals plus the March 21 motion to enforce a settlement agreement are consistent with per-defendant settlements negotiated directly with Mr. Lee (often through the seller's own Chinese-side representatives or a settlement agent). Settling defendants frequently never file an appearance — so even the defendants who "participated" in this case have no attorney on the docket.
3. Rule 55(a) default has been entered against at least one non-responding defendant (Apr. 8, 2026 minute order), with default judgment briefing filed. Those defendants are unrepresented by definition.
4. Sealing caveat. The Schedule A itself was briefly sealed at filing but was unsealed by Judge Seeger on Jan. 5, 2026. I found no sealing order that would hide defense appearances, and no indication in any docket mirror of a sealed defense filing.

Defense-side counsel in CAO Group's other teeth-whitening cases (not this one)

If what you actually need is "who defends CAO Group's patent assertions," the identifiable defense counsel come from the named-defendant cases, not the Schedule A cases. Treat these as leads to verify against PACER, not as counsel in 1:25-cv-14512:

• 1:24-cv-05129, CAO Group v. GD-Whitening (Zhuhai Jiashu Dianzishangwu) — Dan Yao (Yao Legal Group LLC) and Dustin Lee Taylor and Samantha R. Sweet (Husch Blackwell LLP). Husch Blackwell is a national firm with a substantial IP litigation practice; Yao Legal Group is a Chicago-area firm frequently retained by Chinese e-commerce defendants. Case nonetheless ended in default judgment (Aug. 6, 2025). Source: Patsnap litigation record, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cao-group-v-gd-whitening-teeth-whitening-patent-default-judgment-patsnap/.
• 1:24-cv-04903, CAO Group v. Karaka LLC d/b/a The DoubleY Brands — Dana M. Zottola and Terance A. Gonsalves (Alston & Bird LLP) are listed as defendant-side counsel in the Patsnap record. Case was voluntarily dismissed Dec. 18, 2024. I could not independently confirm these appearances on a PACER-derived docket; verify before relying on it. Source: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cao-group-v-karaka-llc-teeth-whitening-patent-dispute-patsnap/.
• 1:26-cv-11795, CAO Group v. Hismile Pty Ltd (a named Australian defendant, accused "PAP+ Strips," '444 patent) — a real defense is likely here, but I did not verify an appearance and won't guess at counsel.

Reliability notes on the sources you'll encounter

• The "Ex Parte" AI docket page for 1:25-cv-14512 (ai-lab.exparte.com) is unreliable: its "complaint analysis" describes the '259 patent as "Validation of Layer 1 Interface in a Network" — a software-defined-networking patent. That is wrong; the '259 patent here is Peroxide Gel Compositions (teeth-whitening strips). Do not cite that page.
• The Chinese-language TRO trackers (maijiazhichi, 52by, kjtro, maijiaxingqiu, selleraegis) reproduce PACER text reasonably faithfully and are useful for docket text, but they sometimes mis-state the filing date (11/16 vs. 11/26) and the plaintiff's firm (they list "Nicholas S. Lee" rather than Bishop Diehl & Lee).
• Docket mirrors lag. Justia's page states it was last retrieved Apr. 24, 2026; the kjtro mirror, updated Aug. 23, 2026, shows no entries after Apr. 24, 2026. A live PACER pull is required to confirm nothing has been filed (e.g., a late defendant appearance, a Rule 60(b) motion, or a final default judgment order) between Aug. 2026 and today.

Suggested verification steps

1. PACER docket for 1:25-cv-14512, run a participant/attorney report — that is the definitive answer on whether any defense appearance exists today.
2. Pull Dkt. 24 (motion to enforce settlement) and its Exhibit A: the settlement agreement will name the settling defendant and often the individual/representative who signed, even though no counsel appeared.
3. Pull Dkt. 25-2 (Lee declaration) — it typically itemizes which defendants were served and which failed to respond, which tells you the universe of potentially unrepresented defendants against whom default judgment is being sought.