Perplexity v Perplexity: default judgement

PERPLEXITY SOLVED SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., Defendant. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., Counterclaimant-Plaintiff,
v.
PERPLEXITY SOLVED SOLUTIONS, INC., Counterclaim-Defendant.

Case No. 25-cv-00989-JSC.

United States District Court, N.D. California.January 23, 2026.

The final Eitel factor typically weighs against default judgment because it favors a decision on the merits. Eitel,

Trump filed a defamation claim against the NY Times and Times reporters on Monday (text of complaint in Trump v New York Times Company, et. al. , 8:25-cv-02487 (MD Fla September 15, 2025)

Today, Judge Steven Merryday, citing the Fed Rule 8 requirement that complaints are to be short and plain statements of

The New York Times published three articles about Trump in the run-up to the ’24 election. Two Times reporters also published a book: “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.”

Trump has now brought a $15 Billion defamation suit against the Times and the publisher of the

AL INFINITY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERSCHEL SPALTER, ISSER BOYARSKY, DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees,CROWN CELL INC., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, WESTVIEW INDUSTRIES, INC., Third-Party-Defendant. 24-1412, (Second Circuit July 15, 2025)

District Court’s Error on Authorization and Burden of Proof:

    ◦ The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants because it found that AL Infinity had

Schedule A defendant (SAD) anti-counterfeiting lawsuits tend to be filed in the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Florida. Judge Ranjan, noting an “uptick in such cases” in the W.D. Penn (home to the city of Pittsburgh) issued a “re-examination” of how they are procedurally administered. The court’s six guidelines are very

SYSCO MACHINERY CORPORATION, a Taiwan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DCS USA CORPORATION, d/b/a Dorey Converting Systems, a North Carolina corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-1675. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. July 9, 2025

“Yet one of the trade secret definitions Sysco used in its complaint includes “the Copyrighted Works,” a defined term that encompasses at

Approximately 80% of Schedule A Defendant (“SAD”) counterfeiting suits are brought in the Northern District of Illinois. The name refers to the captioned name of the defendants – usually “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.”

SAD litigations have been a topic of controversy in recent years. Plaintiffs may make aggressive assertions