Litigation

CAO Group, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, LLCs, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule "A"

default judgment

1:24-cv-01211

Filed
2024-02-12

Patents at issue (4)

11826444
10603259
10646419
11219582

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

CAO Group sued Schedule A online sellers. Stanford NPE lists the case as involving US 11,826,444, but the pleaded counts/default-judgment motion referenced only US 10,603,259; 10,646,419; and 11,219,582. Default judgment: $1,518,750 per defaulting defendant (rounded royalty + transaction costs, trebled).

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a verified overview.

Key finding: the docket shows the case continued well past the default judgment. Let me dig deeper.

Now let me verify the PTAB/IPR angle and the case's current status.

Case Overview — CAO Group, Inc. v. Schedule "A" Defendants, No. 1:24-cv-01211 (N.D. Ill.)

The parties. CAO Group, Inc. is a Utah operating company headquartered in West Jordan, Utah, founded in 2000 by Dr. Densen Cao (Ph.D., materials science, University of Utah), a named inventor on well over 100 patents in LED curing lights, diode lasers, forensic lighting and dental chemistry (CAO Lighting/IPR background; P&G v. CAO, S.D. Ohio No. 1:13-cv-337, Compl. ¶¶1–4). Its accused product line is "Sheer White!" teeth-whitening strips, sold through caogroup.com and dental distributor Henry Schein, plus "Lumist" whitening products (Compl. ¶¶ 21–24; D. Del. 1:25-cv-01430 Compl. ¶18). Co-inventor Steven D. Jensen is a CAO chemist and former Ultradent formulator. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies CAO as a "Product company" (category 8) — i.e., a practicing entity, not a PAE — which is the analytically interesting wrinkle here: CAO is an operating company that borrowed the trademark-counterfeiting litigation playbook to enforce utility patents. The defendants are the opposite: dozens of anonymous or near-anonymous e-commerce seller aliases (OETU Health, Hest Store, iLumes, BYS Technology, Carbonline, Moose Store, PurSell, Joybuy Marketplace, "zhuhai jiashu dianzishangwu youxiangongsi d/b/a GD-Whitening," etc.) operating Amazon, eBay and Walmart storefronts, pleaded as acting "in active concert" and largely offshore (Schedule A; Stanford NPE docket; Dkt. 92).

The accused technology and the patents. The accused instrumentalities are unlicensed ("Unauthorized") dental whitening strips that CAO characterizes as knock-offs of Sheer White!, allegedly manufactured abroad and imported into the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 26–28). All asserted patents descend from a single family titled "Peroxide Gel Composition," claiming priority to a Feb. 8, 2006 application, with substantively identical specifications: U.S. 10,603,259 ('259, issued Mar. 31, 2020) — a dental bleaching device: flexible, water-insoluble backing strip carrying a dried composition of peroxide, water and a PVP or poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) thickener, with thickener exceeding water by weight; U.S. 10,646,419 ('419, issued May 12, 2020) — same device family, emphasizing the composition covering substantially all of one side and remaining adhesive to teeth after removal from the package; U.S. 11,219,582 ('582, issued Jan. 11, 2022) — the "gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic" dried composition that flexes and conforms to the arch "without cracking or breaking"; U.S. 11,826,444 ('444, issued Nov. 2023) — a near-identical continuation of the '582; and U.S. 11,826,445 ('445, issued Nov. 2023), a twin of the '444. As detailed below, the operative pleading history matters: the original counts and the default-judgment motion rested only on the '259, '419 and '582; the '444 and '445 were added over objection in the Third Amended Complaint filed October 28, 2024 (Dkt. 92; Dkt. 123, 125).

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Feb. 12, 2024 in the N.D. Ill. Eastern Division before Judge Thomas M. Durkin, with Magistrate Judge Jeannice W. Appenteng handling discovery, the case is a textbook "Schedule A" case: sealed Schedule A identifying sellers only by alias, an ex parte TRO with a payment-processor asset freeze (preliminary injunction entered April 24, 2024, Dkt. 47), then default judgment. Venue matters for three reasons. First, N.D. Ill. is the national hub for this docket genre, and the case became a vehicle for judicial pushback: on May 20, 2024 Judge Durkin dissolved the asset restraints against all defendants, holding that Grupo Mexicano bars prejudgment freezes in a damages-only utility-patent case and that CAO's unjust-enrichment theory was preempted (Dkt. 67; order PDF) — a ruling that followed the defendants' pointed argument that the freeze was "extortive settlement leverage" (Dkt. 37). Second, on June 14, 2024 Durkin held joinder improper under 35 U.S.C. § 299, following Tang v. Schedule A Defendants, 2024 WL 68332 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024), and severed GD-Whitening into a new case rather than dismissing (Dkt. 95) — that severed action, No. 1:24-cv-05129, ended in a $1,650,000 default judgment on Aug. 6, 2025. Third, the default-judgment economics are the notable data point: on June 12, 2024 Durkin entered default judgment against roughly 31 non-appearing sellers, awarding a reasonable royalty plus "expected transaction costs," trebled, for a total of $1,518,750 per defaulting defendant, with a permanent

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case docket and related proceedings.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. — 1:24-cv-01211 (N.D. Ill.)

Sourcing caveat up front: PACER itself is paywalled for me; the docket detail below is reconstructed from the CourtListener RECAP docket (No. 68245479), the Judici/TRO101 mirrors, and the underlying filed PDFs. Appearances are public — the sealing in this case covered Schedule A, the complaint exhibits, and TRO papers, not the identity of counsel. There is no formal "lead counsel" designation on the docket, so the role labels below are my inference from who signed the complaint, who argued/declared on the TRO, and who signed the later joint filings. (Compare the FDCPA sidebar: this docket is a moving target because the matter changed firms mid-stream in March 2025.)

The roster

Attorney Role (inferred) Firm / office Note
Edward L. Bishop Lead counsel at filing (signed the complaint, ECF No. 1, 2/12/2024); withdrew 3/11/2025 Bishop & Diehl, Ltd. (f/k/a Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.), 1475 E. Woodfield Rd., Ste. 800, Schaumburg, IL Principal of a prolific N.D. Ill. Schedule A IP practice; defendants' counsel noted on the record that CAO's counsel here "also represented the plaintiff in the ABC Products case" (ECF No. 37 at 14 n.9) — i.e., the same firm on both sides of the Grupo Mexicano asset-restraint fight.
Nicholas S. Lee The de facto workhorse: appeared 2/12/2024 (ECF No. 7); filed the TRO motions (ECF Nos. 13, 23), the Lee declarations in support (ECF Nos. 14‑1, 24‑1), and the alternative-service motion (ECF No. 15). Remained counsel after the 2025 move. Bishop & Diehl → Dickinson Wright PLLC, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 2700, Chicago, IL (as of 3/6/2025) Licensed IL 2005 (DePaul '04); the institutional CAO relationship — he is the appearing attorney on CAO's later Schedule A patent suits (1:25‑cv‑04054; 1:25‑cv‑08205; 1:25‑cv‑12503; 1:25‑cv‑14512) and files the default-judgment papers there.
Benjamin A. Campbell Of counsel / supporting counsel (served with ECF No. 103 joint status report); withdrew 3/11/2025 Bishop & Diehl, Ltd., Schaumburg, IL Bishop & Diehl IP litigator; no separate argued motion identified on this docket.
Sameeul Haque Of counsel / case-handler in 2024–25 (filed the motion for leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and its exhibits, ECF No. 114, 9/20/2024; filed a joint status report in March 2025) Bishop & Diehl → Dickinson Wright → Haque III Legal Practice, LLC, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 810, Chicago, IL Chicago-Kent '19; Schedule A/IP boutique background (TME Law → Bishop Diehl & Lee); founded H3LP in 2025 and now runs its own Schedule A docket (e.g., Wacom and Bright Head cases). His firm's own case history lists 1:24‑cv‑1211 as a CAO matter.

The March 2025 change of firms — what actually happened

This is the part most secondary sources get wrong (and it's why the "who represents CAO" answer isn't static):

  • On 3/7/2025, Bishop & Diehl (f/k/a Bishop Diehl & Lee) and attorneys Edward L. Bishop and Benjamin A. Campbell moved to withdraw under L.R. 83.17 (ECF No. 138). The motion recites that Nicholas S. Lee — who already had an appearance in the case — "is no longer a member of Withdrawing Counsel's firm," that his CM/ECF account was updated to his new contact information, and that on 3/6/2025 CAO "instructed Withdrawing Counsel to transfer this case to Mr. Lee and his new firm, Dickinson Wright, PLLC."
  • Judge Durkin granted the withdrawal on 3/11/2025, terminating Bishop and Campbell.
  • Critically, the motion states Lee would "file any additional or amended appearances as appropriate" — meaning Lee's 2024 appearance carried forward with an updated firm address. I did not find a fresh Dickinson Wright appearance notice docketed in 1:24‑cv‑01211 in the public mirrors, so treat "Lee = Dickinson Wright of record in this case" as well-supported but not confirmed by a discrete ECF entry.

Nothing to report on two categories

  • No in-house counsel has appeared for CAO Group. Dr. Densen Cao signs the client declarations (e.g., the Third Amended Complaint declaration attached to ECF No. 114) as an officer, not as counsel.
  • No sealed/quashed appearances: counsel identities in this docket were never sealed. If you need the current-of-record list as of today (11/3/2026), pull the PACER docket directly — the mirrors I used are stale on the post-judgment, late-2025 activity.

One practical flag for your analysis

Because Bishop and Campbell are gone and Haque left for H3LP, the only attorney whose appearance unquestionably bridges the February 2024 complaint to the default-judgment phase is Nicholas S. Lee. If you are evaluating continuity of the $1,518,750-per-defendant default judgment or contemplating a Rule 60(b) / appeal angle, Lee is the single point of contact — and Dickinson Wright, not Bishop & Diehl, is the firm to notice.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and any appearances by defense counsel in this Schedule "A" case.

Bottom line

There is no defense counsel of record in this case today. The case is closed (docket reports closure 08/06/2025) and ended in default judgment (Dkt. 92) against the non-appearing Schedule "A" sellers. Only a handful of defendants ever appeared through counsel, and every one of those appearances was either withdrawn, terminated, or belonged to a defendant whose claims were resolved/severed before judgment. The 31 defaulting defendants were, by definition, unrepresented.

That is the key practical point: this is a pure default-judgment Schedule "A" case, so the "defense bar" in it is a short and transient list.

Attorneys who appeared for defendants

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes
He Cheng (appears on the docket as "Cheng, He"; signature blocks use "Robin Cheng," rcheng@palmerlawgroup.com, (917) 525-1495) Lead (and apparently sole) counsel for the only defendants still appearing in 2024 — Defendant Nos. 6 and 25, the "5D Whitening Strips" sellers (seller aliases haiyi_mall and newage-store) Palmer Law Group, P.A. — office location not confirmed in the sources I could retrieve; the 917 number and the "5353 N. …" address line in Dkt. 103 are the only location clues Entered appearance 05/27/2024; filed the motion to vacate the preliminary injunction/asset freeze (Dkt. 74–75) on prior-art invalidity and "no peroxide/no drying step" grounds; answered and defended against CAO's motion to vacate (Dkt. 102) and opposed the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 116). No public record of prior patent litigation found — treat as unverified.
Steven G. Kalberg (skalberg@directionip.com) Counsel of record for BYS Technology (#5), Carbonline (#10), Moose Store (#23); appearance filed 04/03/2024 Direction IP Law, P.O. Box 14184, Chicago, IL 60614 (312-291-1667 / 847-508-1294) Patent-focused boutique. Appeared with David R. Bennett for the patent owner in Unified Patents LLC v. Virtual Creative Artists LLC, IPR2022-01263 (oral argument Feb. 2024); filed patent suits such as Adaptive Avenue Assocs. v. Saks Fifth Avenue (N.D. Ill. 1:24-cv-04092) and Digi Portal LLC v. Panera (N.D. Ill. 1:22-cv-06681). Withdrew — motion at Dkt. 107 (08/15/2024), granted 08/28/2024; docket notes "Attorney Steven G. Kalberg terminated." Motion recites clients' stores were closed by Amazon and clients instructed him to withdraw, with an express warning that default could follow.
David R. Bennett (dbennett@directionip.com) Appears in the case's signature blocks and in the joint status report as counsel alongside Kalberg for the Kalberg Defendants Direction IP Law, Chicago Founding partner of Direction IP Law; registered patent attorney with substantial IPR and district-court patent experience (co-counsel with Kalberg in IPR2022-01263; Adaptive Avenue, Digi Portal). Caveat: I could not confirm a separate ATTORNEY Appearance form for Bennett on this docket — he signs the joint status report (Dkt. 103) and the withdrawal motion (Dkt. 107), but the withdrawal motion itself was filed by Kalberg. Do not represent him as having a live appearance.
"D. Taylor" (identified only via "Declaration of D. Taylor" cited in Dkt. 37) Counsel for GD-Whitening (#8), the defendant that moved to modify/dissolve the TRO asset freeze (Dkt. 37, filed 04/16/2024) Not identified in the sources retrieved GD-Whitening won a partial victory: the court found joinder improper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 and severed CAO's claims against it into a new case, CAO Group v. GD-Whitening, No. 24-cv-5129 (N.D. Ill., also before Judge Durkin). GD-Whitening's defense fee arrangement and firm affiliation (small-seller defense counsel in Schedule A cases) should be verified on the 24-cv-5129 docket — I could not do so here.

Gaps and cautions

  • Not identified: counsel for the several other defendants that appeared briefly and then settled/were dismissed by stipulation or notice (e.g., DEEPSOUND, BLUE ELF, Acupress, homefromgoods, PureSell, Gaoxi, ANCRV, Dkt. 105 stipulation of dismissal; the fairywill/fairywill_global dismissals). CAO's Dkt. 114 motion notes that various defendants "appeared, filed various motions or pleadings, or otherwise contacted Plaintiff's counsel … and have subsequently settled and been dismissed," but the docket sources I retrieved do not consistently list their counsel.
  • Sealing: the complaint, Schedule A and supporting exhibits were filed under seal early on (Dkt. 4 sealed complaint), and some filings were sealed; a few defense-side filings may be under seal, which limits name-level verification.
  • Palmer Law Group's address and He Cheng's bar admissions are unverified. The phone number and partial address in Dkt. 103 are all that surfaced.
  • Post-2024 status of the Cheng Defendants: as of CAO's 09/20/2024 motion (Dkt. 114), Nos. 6 and 25 "are the only group of appearing Defendants remaining." I could not confirm from the retrieved sources how their claims were resolved before the August 2025 closure — the most likely path is settlement/dismissal, but that is inference, not a sourced fact.
  • Plaintiff's side, for contrast, was Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd. (Schaumburg, IL — E. Bishop, N. Lee, B. Campbell, S. Haque), per the signature block on Dkt. 70.

Where to verify

If you need a complete attorney-level picture, the two dockets to pull directly from PACER are 1:24-cv-01211 (full appearance/termination entries) and the severed 1:24-cv-5129 (GD-Whitening), which is where GD-Whitening's counsel would have a sustained appearance.