AbbVie Inc. v. BeiGene, LTD., et al., No. 24-cv-8167, (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2026) (Cummings, J.).

Judge Cummings denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss AbbVie’s Defend Trade Secrets Act claim. AbbVie alleges that BeiGene lured former AbbVie Senior Research Scientist Dr. Huaqing Liu out of retirement to serve as Executive Director of BeiGene’s Department of Chemistry in order to gain access to AbbVie’s BTK degrader trade secrets. AbbVie further alleges that BeiGene then used those secrets to dramatically change the course of its own BTK degrader development, filing at least six patent applications containing designs that closely resembled or exactly replicated AbbVie’s trade secret designs.

Defendants raised four arguments:

  1. AbbVie failed to allege Liu took any tangible information;
  2. AbbVie did not plead protective measures specific to the BTK program;
  3. AbbVie failed to plausibly allege BeiGene’s patent applications were derived from AbbVie; and
  4. the Complaint failed to adequately specify the alleged trade secrets.

The Court rejected each argument. Of particular interest, the Court held:

  • AbbVie only needs to plausibly plead misappropriation of a single trade secret to survive a motion to dismiss. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not permit piecemeal dismissals of parts of claims, chipping away at claims is the role of summary judgment.
  • Combinations of publicly available components can still qualify as trade secrets where the unique combination affords a competitive advantage.
  • The Seventh Circuit requires only that protective measures be “reasonable,” and it is “immaterial” that AbbVie applies the same confidentiality policy to other information. AbbVie need not necessarily show a heightened protection program for the specific trade secrets at issue.
  • Trade secrets can exist in employees’ memories. A trade secret plaintiff does not need to show that an actual document was taken.
  • Circumstantial evidence, including suspicious timing between Liu’s departure and BeiGene’s filing of patent applications containing AbbVie’s designs, is sufficient to support misappropriation allegations at the pleading stage.
  • Claims under the DTSA are not subject to a heightened pleading standard. At the pleading stage, plaintiffs can plead specificity “in broad strokes.”

The motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.

Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Dunican and Rooftop by the Firehouse, Inc. d/b/a Wrigley View Rooftop, No. 24-cv-05086, (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2026) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Cubs’ Lanham Act misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims.

The Cubs alleged that defendants sold tickets to view Cubs games from their rooftop across the street from Wrigley Field after the Cubs informed defendants that their license to sell such tickets would not be renewed for the 2024 season. Despite that notice, defendants listed the Cubs’ schedule on their website and sold tickets to access the rooftop, even selling out on several dates.

Defendants argued that the Cubs do not possess a property right in the experience of live games and that defendants are entitled to profit from the views around their own rooftop. The Court disagreed, relying on Pittsburgh Athletic Co. v. KQV Broad. Co. and Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC to recognize a property right in profits from live games. The Court held that the Cubs plausibly alleged misappropriation: (1) the Cubs created a product through substantial investment approaching a billion dollars annually; (2) defendants used that product in competition with the Cubs for their own commercial benefit without bearing any of the production costs; and (3) the Cubs alleged commercial damage in the form of lost revenue from ticket sales, concessions, and merchandise.

The unjust enrichment claim likewise survived because it “stand[s] . . . with the related claim” of misappropriation. The Court also noted that defendants’ own Answer raised disputes of material fact—by denying facts essential to the Cubs’ claims and asserting facts of their own—which independently precluded judgment on the pleadings.

McLellan v. Google LLC, No. 25 C 12761, (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2026) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly granted Google’s motion to transfer this patent infringement case to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and left Google’s motion to dismiss for the transferee court.

Plaintiff McLellan alleged that Google’s search engine infringed his patent on an algorithm for ranking search results based on the frequency that websites’ “promoters” perform twenty-eight “defined actions,” such as logging into or creating an account. McLellan resides in Delaware and had no meaningful ties to the Northern District of Illinois, weakening the deference normally given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Google identified six employee witnesses with the alleged most relevant knowledge, five of whom are based at Google’s headquarters in the Northern District of California. Google also identified three former Yahoo! employees who could be witnesses on validity issues and who appear to reside in the Northern District of California. Physical evidence, including two servers, an original Yahoo! prior-art device, and a Google prototype, were also located there. No comparable witnesses, prior-art systems, documentation, or evidence were identified in Illinois.

McLellan argued that party-employee witnesses would appear voluntarily and that video testimony was available for others. The Court acknowledged these points but held they did not erase the importance of witness location. The Court noted that the non-party Yahoo! witnesses could not be compelled to travel to Illinois and that live testimony remains significantly preferable to video.

The Court gave limited weight to docket-congestion statistics, viewing the time-to-trial comparison as anecdotal based upon the small sample size. In the final analysis, the Court concluded that this case had no connection to the Northern District other than McLellan’s decision to file here despite it not being his home venue. The Northern District of California was clearly more convenient, with better access to witnesses and evidence.

On August 27, 2026 from 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. CT, the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and the Seventh Circuit Bar Association Pro Bono & Public Service Committee will host a free CLE event focused on effective settlement advocacy for pro se matters. The program will be held at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 2525.

Topics will include:

SAP Matters: Overview and the Volunteer Experience: Presented by J. Cunyon Gordon, Settlement Assistance Program Director, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and Rami Fakhouri of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP.

Listening Differently: Client Communication Strategies: Presented by Jim Alrutz of the Center for Conflict Resolution.

Strategies and Pitfalls: Lessons from the Bench: Moderated by Margot Klein of Ogletree Deakins and presented by a panel of federal magistrate judges:

  • Judge Jeannice Appenteng;
  • Judge Albert Berry III; and
  • Judge Laura K. McNally.

Attendees will receive 3 hours of general CLE credit pending approval and become eligible to participate in the Pro Se Litigants Settlement Assistance Program (SAP). Registration is free, but space is limited. To register, contact Debbie Groboski at admin@7thcircuitbar.org.

On October 6, 2026, the Federal Circuit Bar Association will present its 2026 Bench & Bar® in Dialogue – Chicago CLE program at the University Club of Chicago, 76 E. Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603.  The CLE program aligns with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Court Week in Chicago.  The program will feature judges from the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, as well as members of the legal and academic communities. I will also be speaking on Panel Two about Schedule A cases.

The event will begin with registration from 12:45 p.m. to 1:15 p.m., followed by programming from 1:15 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. A reception will follow from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., with dinner from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.  Click here to register.

The Agenda is below:

12:45 PM – 1:15 PM   Registration

1:15 PM – 1:20 PM     Welcome Remarks

1:20 PM – 2:05 PM    Panel One: Pleading Standards Post Hikma v. Amarin

2:05 PM – 3:10 PM    Panel Two: Chicago’s Role in Enforcing Patents Against Online Infringers

3:10 PM – 3:30 PM    Networking Break

3:30 PM – 4:15 PM    Panel Three: Review of Recent Federal Circuit Remedies Decisions and Their Implications

4:15 PM – 5:15 PM    Panel Four: Federal Circuit Judicial Panel

5:15 PM – 5:25 PM    Chief Judge Moore’s Federal Circuit Community Outreach Update

5:30 PM – 6:00 PM    Panel Five: Fireside Chat with the Chiefs

6:00 PM – 7:00 PM    Reception

7:00 PM – 9:00 PM    Dinner

Sagent Pharmaceuticals v. Farco USA, LLC, et al., No. 25 C 14080, (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2026) (Kocoras, J.).

Judge Kocoras granted in part and denied in part defendants’ partial Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this Defend Trade Secrets Act, Illinois trade secret, and breach of contract action. Sagent alleged that three former employees conspired with German pharmaceutical manufacturer FARCO-PHARMA to replace Sagent as the exclusive U.S. distributor for GLYDO, a lidocaine jelly product, by forming defendant Farco USA.

The Court held that direct evidence of trade secret misappropriation is rare, and that Sagent’s allegations plausibly pled misappropriation as to Szurgot and Blasik, including:

  • that Szurgot surreptitiously renamed confidential term sheet documents and sent them to his personal email;
  • that Blasik emailed over 1,500 hospital division contacts to his personal email and downloaded confidential files to a personal USB drive;
  • that both lied to Sagent investigators; and
  • that Szurgot disclosed Sagent’s privileged negotiation strategy to FARCO-PHARMA.

The Court held that these allegations were not sufficient to state a direct misappropriation claim against Jensen, who served as Vice President of Finance and did not personally take or forward documents. However, the Court found that Sagent plausibly pled inevitable disclosure as to all three individual defendants. The Court noted that Farco USA was created to compete in the same national market Defendants oversaw at Sagent, that Defendants are poised to hold similar positions there, that none had experience in urology products before joining Sagent, and that Defendants had taken no steps to prevent use of Sagent’s trade secrets.

The Court also held that defendants’ request to strike injunctive relief was premature.

The tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claims were dismissed without prejudice because Sagent failed to allege an actual breach of contract or adequately allege damages. Claims against Jensen for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment survived.

On Thursday, August 13, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Central, volunteer attorneys are invited to attend a Zoom orientation to learn more about the Hibbler Help Desk, a free resource for pro se litigants with cases in the Northern District of Illinois.

The Uptown People’s Law Center (“UPLC”) coordinates the Hibbler Help Desk – a free, virtual resource designed to assist pro se litigants navigate federal court – for the Northern District of Illinois.

Volunteers provide unrepresented litigants practical guidance on procedures and rules as their case proceeds through the Northern District.  The Hibbler Help Desk requires no specific subject matter expertise beyond some federal practice experience and independent malpractice insurance. It is also entirely virtual. 

If you are interested in this great opportunity or would like to learn more, please join the orientation via Zoom:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/mHkHASXnS86wp36Hv41A1w

Art Akiane, LLC v. Art & SoulWorks LLC et al., No. 1:19-CV-02952, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026) (Chang, J.).

Judge Chang resolved numerous claims and defenses arising from the breakdown of a nearly two-decade-long licensing relationship between artist Akiane Kramarik’s licensing entity (Art Akiane) and her former retailer (Art & Soulworks). The Court granted Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 partial summary judgment to both sides on various issues while sending most disputed claims to trial, and denied Art Akiane’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt of a prior preliminary injunction (PI).

Under a licensing agreement first executed in 2008 and renewed through January 2019, Art & Soulworks reproduced Akiane’s artwork on products like greeting cards, journals, and bookmarks in exchange for royalties. After Art Akiane elected not to renew, Art & Soulworks continued displaying montages of Akiane’s artwork on social media, offering free downloads of her Prince of Peace painting, and using the phrase “Art by Akiane” on its products. Art Akiane brought claims under the Copyright Act, DMCA, Lanham Act, Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and common law claims.

Copyright Infringement: The Court drew a clear line between pre- and post-License conduct. For post-License display of promotional montages incorporating Akiane’s artwork, Art Akiane was entitled to summary judgment. Even if Art & Soulworks could create limited-use derivative works during the License, there was no such authority after expiration. Citing Gracen v. Bradford Exchange, 698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983), the Court held that the License contained no explicit authorization for Art & Soulworks to produce derivative works, nor could Art & Soulworks claim ownership of any derivatives. But for conduct during the License period, genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Art Akiane implicitly consented to promotional montages.

Lanham Act false designation of origin claim: The Court granted summary judgment to Art Akiane. Analyzing the unregistered mark “Akiane” as a personal name with strong secondary meaning given its uniqueness and 20 years of use in commerce the Court held that Art & Soulworks’ use of “Art by Akiane” on products created a likelihood of confusion as to authorization and affiliation. A former licensee “cannot create its own mark by simply adding the words ‘Art by’ to its licensor’s existing mark.” For post-License conduct, Art & Soulworks was also liable for any usage of “Art by Akiane” or “Official Source” in connection with product sales.

Among other significant rulings, the Court held:

  • that Art Akiane’s common law unfair competition and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims survived copyright preemption because they require consumer confusion beyond mere copying;
  • dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as preempted;
  • denied the Defendants’ waiver and estoppel defenses due to genuine disputes of material fact;
  • granted summary judgment to Art Akiane on breach of contract for $23,413.74 in admitted unpaid royalties;
  • dismissed Art Akiane’s Anti-Cybersquatting claim because “Prince of Peace” is a generic biblical reference not protectable as a trademark; and
  • granted summary judgment to Art Akiane against all of the Defendants’ counterclaims.

Contempt: The Court declined to hold Defendants in contempt despite admitted violations of the PI, crediting Art & Soulworks’ explanation that inadvertent republication of infringing content was caused by website modifications and was cured within a reasonable timeframe. However, the Court modified the injunction with more specific directives.

Collectanea J. Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 25 C 4839, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026) (Kocoras, J.).

Judge Kocoras granted nonparty eBay’s motion to modify the preliminary injunction (PI) in this Schedule A trademark and copyright infringement case, dissolving the PI against all 252 defendants after finding improper joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.

Collectanea, a Hong Kong corporation, filed suit against 252 defendant-seller accounts across Amazon, eBay, and other platforms, alleging infringement of its BEADNOVA trademark and copyrights. The Court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a PI requiring platforms including eBay to freeze defendants’ accounts and funds. Of the 252 defendants, 167 operated on eBay’s platform. eBay moved for relief as to 50 of those sellers, submitting evidence that more than half never sold an accused product, all accused listings had ended by 2024, and 25 of the 50 sellers were verified U.S.-based businesses.

As a threshold matter, the Court found that eBay had standing to challenge the PI as a nonparty bound by the injunction’s affirmative obligations, citing Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. CFTC, 511 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2007). However, eBay’s standing was limited to challenging provisions directly affecting its own interests and did not extend to raising joinder arguments on behalf of defendants. The Court nonetheless exercised its authority to review joinder sua sponte, a “regular practice” in Schedule A cases in this district.

On joinder, the Court found that Collectanea’s allegations—shared design elements, similar SEO tactics, payment methods, and an “information and belief” contention that defendants participated in WeChat chat rooms—were precisely the kind of “conclusory, boilerplate allegations” that courts in this district have “consistently rejected.” Citing Estée Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020), the Court held that these common characteristics are “inherent to the act of online counterfeiting itself” and do not establish coordination among defendants. The Lindsley Declaration further undermined any inference of coordination, revealing a collection of unrelated sellers who independently listed infringing products.

Because of improper joinder, the Court dissolved the PI in its entirety. The Court emphasized that Collectanea had not demonstrated irreparable harm—more than half the eBay sellers never sold an accused product, the vast majority of listings ended years ago, and Collectanea’s delay in asserting its rights further undermined its position. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint limited to defendants as to whom it can plead specific facts establishing a transactional link, but left the door open for Collectanea to seek narrowly tailored injunctive relief against properly joined defendants.

This decision continues a trend in the Northern District of courts taking an increasingly skeptical view of multi-defendant Schedule A cases that rely on boilerplate joinder allegations. Plaintiffs pursuing counterfeiting claims against large numbers of defendants should be prepared to offer specific, non-conclusory evidence of coordination rather than relying on the inherent similarities of counterfeiting conduct.

Feng v. Kitsure-BJT, No. 25 CV 9209, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2026) (Shah, J.).

Judge Shah denied Defendant Kitsure-BJT’s Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this design patent infringement case involving sink caddy products sold on Amazon.

Plaintiff Liu Feng, a Chinese limited company, owns U.S. Design Patent No. 1,038,566 for “[t]he ornamental design for a sink caddy,” registered August 6, 2024. Feng alleged that Kitsure-BJT’s competing sink caddy product infringes its patent. Kitsure moved to dismiss, arguing that the products were “plainly dissimilar” as a matter of law, primarily pointing to its product’s “bidirectional grid of perpendicular bars” creating a “fundamentally” different visual impression.

Applying the “ordinary observer” test from Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), the Court construed the claim to cover the ornamental design for a sink caddy and then assessed whether the accused design was “plainly dissimilar.” Citing Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Court emphasized that where distinguishable components have a functional aspect, they must be excluded from the infringement comparison. The Court found it “equally plausible” at the pleading stage that Kitsure’s structural differences—the perpendicular bars—serve a functional purpose (to better secure items in the caddy) rather than creating a distinct ornamental impression.

The Court distinguished the Defendant’s cited authorities—High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc., 621 Fed. App’x 632 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and North Star Technology International v. Latham Pool Products, 676 F.Supp.3d 579 (E.D. Tenn. 2023)—noting both involved summary judgment with developed records, not motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that at the pleading stage, without formal claim construction and without giving Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to articulate the design features of its patented claim, the accused product and asserted design patent are “not plainly dissimilar.”

For design patent defendants, this opinion confirms that the “plainly dissimilar” standard is a high bar to clear at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, particularly where differences between products may be functional rather than ornamental.