Encore Packaging, LLC v. Benchmark Industrial Inc., No. 25 C 6865, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2026) (Durkin, J.).

Judge Durkin denied Defendant Benchmark Industrial’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this case involving claims for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract arising from a failed business relationship between an Illinois packaging manufacturer and an Ohio packaging supplier.

Encore Packaging alleged that Benchmark approached it with a proposal to design and manufacture paper dispensing units for Amazon’s transition to recyclable packaging. Encore further alleged that Benchmark repeatedly sent employees to Encore’s Illinois facility over several months to inspect designs, assess production capabilities, and discuss the Amazon deal. Benchmark also communicated with Encore “many times over many months” by phone, email, and text, and made payments to Encore in connection with the proposed deal.

Benchmark largely conceded the facts but argued that:

(1) contracting with an out-of-state party alone cannot establish minimum contacts;

(2) emails do not exist in any fixed location under Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys. LLC v. Real Action Paintball Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014);

(3) payments via automated clearing house were equally “fortuitous” as to location; and

(4) none of the employee visits were material to the claims’ elements.

The Court rejected each argument. Citing North v. Ubiquity, Inc., 72 F.4th 221 (7th Cir. 2023), the Court held that Benchmark “reached out” from Ohio to Illinois with a proposal that induced Encore to design and manufacture a product, then monitored that process over many months. Unlike Advanced Tactical, where a mass email’s connection to the forum was fortuitous, Benchmark intentionally sent communications to Encore knowing it was in Illinois. And regardless of the form of payment, “its ultimate destination was Illinois.” The Court also rejected Benchmark’s contention that its employee visits bore no relation to the claims, finding that the visits directly established the very agreements that Encore now alleges were breached. Finally, the Court found that asserting jurisdiction was fair and just, noting Illinois’s strong interest in providing a forum for its residents and that five of Encore’s seven claims arise under Illinois law.

On August 4, 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. the Northern District of Illinois and the American Red Cross will host a blood drive at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse. This is a great opportunity to make a difference. Your donation will provide life-saving blood to those in need.

Appointments are encouraged but walk-ins are welcomed.  For an appointment call 1-800-RED CROSS (1-800-733-2767) or visit RedCrossBlood.org and use the sponsor code: USDistrictCourt

Donors can save time on the day of their appointment by completing RapidPass before arriving. Visit RedCrossBlood.org/RapidPass for more information.

Donors are required to bring a photo ID or your blood donor card, or two other forms of ID.

Individuals who donate blood during the month of August will receive a $20 Amazon Gift Card by email.  See rcblood.org/August for terms and details.

Bright Head, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A, No. 24 C 13410, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2026) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo denied without prejudice Defendant Yuyao Jixing Tool Co., Ltd. (d/b/a WopkDupk)’s motion for damages on a $10,000 TRO security bond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) in this Schedule A case, finding that while the defendant was entitled to recover damages as a wrongfully restrained party, its evidence of lost profits was insufficiently supported to allow for a reasonable estimate.

Plaintiff Bright Head filed a sealed patent infringement suit against six defendants (five in China, one in Canada) and obtained an ex parte TRO in March 2025 that included an asset freeze compelling Amazon and other payment processors to locate and freeze all funds in defendants’ accounts. The Court later denied Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion in July 2025 and denied reconsideration in August 2025. Plaintiff appealed to the Federal Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute in December 2025. Defendant then moved for Rule 65(c) damages.

Applying Coyne-Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Dev. Bd. of State of Illinois, 717 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1983), and Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. v. Holon Supplier, 2023 WL 7386062 (N.D. Ill. 2023), the Court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction and dissolution of a TRO “constitutes a final determination that the plaintiff has been wrongfully enjoined,” regardless of whether the merits have been adjudicated.

The Court then systematically rejected four of Plaintiff’s five arguments against damages. First, Plaintiff’s good faith efforts to ask Amazon to release the restraints did not negate the wrongful nature of the restraint, because bond damages are compensatory, not punitive. Second, the fact that some inventory restraints resulted from a joint stipulated order rather than the TRO itself only accounted for a tiny portion of the claimed damages. Third and fifth, Plaintiff’s arguments that damages were inappropriate absent a merits determination were erroneous as a matter of law.

However, the Court agreed with Plaintiff’s argument that the specific damages were insufficiently proven. Defendant submitted Amazon seller account screenshots and a declaration from its accountant, who calculated $94,058.78 in total damages based on 110 days of frozen operations, an average daily gross revenue of $1,597.58, and various cost deductions. But the Court found that the description of defendant’s generic costs categories, supported only by vague references to “internal records,” failed to offer a reasonable basis for quantifying lost profits. The Court also noted that the Amazon screenshots contained unexplained data that the accountant’s declaration did not interpret.

The Court denied the motion without prejudice, giving defendant until February 27, 2026 to file a renewed motion with “sufficient quantitative evidence to allow for a reasonable estimate of the lost profits it seeks,” with the warning that failure to refile would convert the denial to one with prejudice.

Read together with Judge Ellis’s opinion in Shenzhen Langmi Technology Co. v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A (also reported on this blog), this case reinforces a common theme: courts in the Northern District of Illinois are willing to award TRO bond damages to wrongfully restrained defendants, but they demand rigorous, well-documented proof of the specific damages incurred.

Grill Rescue LLC d/b/a Rescue LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 23-cv-15984, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2026) (Kness, J.).

Judge Kness granted Defendant Shenzhen Lantianjinrun Trading Co., Ltd.’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the accused grill cleaning brush was plainly dissimilar to Plaintiff Grill Rescue’s design patent, U.S. Patent No. D946,850 (the “’850 patent”). The ruling is a useful illustration of how design patent infringement claims can be resolved at the earliest stages of litigation when the visual differences between the patented and accused designs are sufficiently stark.

Grill Rescue brought this Schedule A case alleging that numerous e-commerce sellers on platforms like Amazon and Walmart were offering products infringing its design patents. After voluntarily withdrawing several claims, the remaining patent infringement claim centered on the ‘850 patent, a design for a brush used to clean a grill. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing both noninfringement and invalidity.

The Court held that the Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) “ordinary observer” test can be made at the pleading stage where the patent drawings and images of the accused product are incorporated by reference into the complaint and sufficiently different.

Comparing the images side-by-side, Judge Kness identified multiple plain differences: (1) the accused brush appeared noticeably thicker in proportion to its width and length; (2) the patented design had a smooth surface while the accused product featured a herringbone texture and different stitching pattern; (3) the patented design showed smooth, round corners on the cleaning head while the accused product had non-uniform corners; and (4) the accused product had a dimpled bottom while the patent drawings depicted a smooth bottom.

The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that, at the pre-discovery stage, the Court was required to accept its allegation of infringement as true. Citing Wagner v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 840 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court noted that an allegation of patent infringement is a “legal assertion” that need not be accepted as true on a Rule 12(c) motion. The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the timing of the accused product’s entry into the market supported an inference of infringement, finding no legal authority for the proposition that market timing could supplant or affect the ordinary observer test.

Notably, the Court declined to reach Defendant’s alternative invalidity argument under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, observing that courts have often “declined to entertain indefiniteness arguments at the pleading stage” and that none of the cases Defendant cited for pleading-stage resolution of infringement claims appeared to actually invalidate a patent.

The Court also flagged an important procedural note: because neither party addressed whether entry of partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) was appropriate, the Court granted the motion but did not enter a final judgment order. Plaintiff’s trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and state law claims remained pending.

Innovation Industries, LLC v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 3157, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2026) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo granted summary judgment to Innovation Industries, LLC on its copyright infringement claims against three Amazon sellers, UMagic, Perbelee, and Sumnify, who had been marketing knockoff hummingbird feeder heaters using Innovation’s copyrighted product images in this Schedule A case. The Court awarded $150,000 in damages per defendant after finding willful infringement.

Innovation sells heaters for hummingbird feeders designed to support overwintering hummingbirds in colder climates. Defendants operated Amazon storefronts selling apparent counterfeits of Innovation’s products, collectively earning $640,844.95 in gross revenues from the sale of 25,385 products. Although the defendants maintained different online stores under different names, the Court found they were operating in concert.

When Innovation moved for summary judgment, the defendants’ only response was to fire their counsel, failing to respond to either the summary judgment motion or Innovation’s Rule 56.1 statement of facts.

The Court found Innovation established both elements of copyright infringement: ownership of valid copyrights (supported by copyright certificates) and copying of original elements. The defendants’ products and marketing photographs were “so similar to Innovation’s copyrights as to give rise to the inference that defendants in fact copied Innovation’s works.”

The Court found the infringement was willful, noting that the “replication of Innovation’s products and the duplication of a photograph from Innovation’s website is convincing evidence that defendants were aware the works they were using were copyrighted.”

On damages, the Court awarded $150,000 per defendant in damages (equivalent to maximum statutory damages for the infringement of a copyrighted work), noting that the collective award was less than defendants’ combined gross revenues of over $640,000. The Court also awarded reasonable costs, fees, and injunctive relief.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter proudly announce the Courthouse Book Drive.  Donations of new or gently used children’s books (grades K-8) are being accepted for the American Dreams Playroom at the Dirksen Federal Building.  This incredible effort ensures that every child attending a naturalization ceremony receives a book to take home.

New or gently used books will be accepted at the Dirksen Lobby, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60610, from June 16, 2026, through July 15, 2026.

Click here for the Courthouse Book Drive Flyer.

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP v. Dorsey et al., No. 1:25-cv-3141, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2026) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss in this declaratory judgment action where the plaintiff Fitch Even sought a declaration that its former client’s CEO was not a co-inventor of a patent the firm had helped prosecute. The Court found the firm was improperly using a federal patent inventorship correction claim to litigate defenses to a state court legal malpractice action.

Fitch Even had been retained by Prenatal Hope, Inc. (“PNH”) to prepare patent applications for PNH’s “Halo II” medical technology. PNH’s former CTO, James Balman, had independently filed a provisional patent application, and Fitch Even subsequently filed an international application claiming the benefit of that provisional. The resulting U.S. Patent No. 11,622,705 listed Balman as the sole inventor. PNH’s CEO, Tammy Dorsey, was not named as an inventor.

PNH subsequently sued Fitch Even for malpractice in state court, alleging the firm negligently failed to name Dorsey as a co-inventor. After the first malpractice action was dismissed as premature, PNH refiled in 2024. During discovery in that case, Fitch Even asked PNH to identify evidence supporting Dorsey’s inventorship claim; PNH allegedly provided none. Fitch Even then filed the federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that Dorsey was not an inventor.

The Court acknowledged that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Section 256 inventorship correction claims. However, examining Fitch Even’s actual motivation, the Court found the firm explicitly conceded its direct economic interest in declaratory relief was to mitigate potential malpractice damages or vitiate PNH’s negligence claim. The Court held that what Fitch Even sought was a declaration to mitigate damages, not a correction of inventorship.

A party cannot transform a state-law dispute into a federal action by injecting a federal question. The state court malpractice claims, whether the firm failed to follow client instructions, failed to list the proper parties, or failed to obtain an assignment, were rooted in state law.

On Thursday, June 25, 2026, from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m., the Northern District, the Asian American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Asian American Judges Association of Illinois will host a reenactment of the historic court proceedings involving Fred Korematsu and his fight against Japanese-American internment.

The in-person program will take place in the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse ceremonial courtroom.  Afterward, guests are invited to attend a reception featuring light refreshments and enjoy the new art exhibit highlighting the history and impact of Japanese American incarceration.

The event is open to the public.  Pending approval attendees will receive 1.0 hour of CLE credit.  Click here to register.

Sueros & Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de C.V. et al. v. Palimex Distributors Inc. et al., No. 1:25-cv-02171, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2026) (Rowland, J.).

Judge Rowland’s court received an agreed motion for entry of final judgment and permanent injunction in this gray market goods trademark infringement case involving Electrolit branded rehydration beverages.

Plaintiff Sueros, the Mexican owner of the ELECTROLIT trademarks, and CAB Enterprises, the exclusive U.S. licensee, sued Palimex Distributors for importing and selling foreign-manufactured ELECTROLIT products not authorized for the U.S. market (“Unauthorized Electrolit”). The parties stipulated to detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law establishing that the unauthorized products were materially different from the U.S.-authorized version.

The material differences catalogued in the stipulation are extensive:

  1. U.S. Electrolit packaging is in English; Unauthorized Electrolit contains Spanish;
  2. different product formulas;
  3. U.S. products include FDA-compliant Nutrition Facts labeling;
  4. U.S. products list a toll-free customer service number;
  5. U.S. packaging states the product is gluten-free and sweetened with natural glucose;
  6. U.S. packaging uses imperial measurements versus metric;
  7. Unauthorized Electrolit makes health claims not approved by the FDA for U.S. sale;
  8. U.S. products include “USE BY” dates; and
  9. U.S. packaging includes bottle deposit refund information.

The agreed judgment applies the well-established Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. standard, which holds that in gray market goods cases, the “threshold of materiality is always quite low” and the existence of any difference that consumers would likely consider relevant when purchasing a product creates a presumption of consumer confusion sufficient to support a Lanham Act claim. The judgment also notes that the Lanham Act is a “strict liability statute” where “ignorance is no defense.”

The permanent injunction broadly restrains Palimex, its affiliates, and those in active concert from purchasing, selling, distributing, importing, or advertising Unauthorized Electrolit, while expressly permitting the lawful sale of genuine U.S. Electrolit products. Plaintiffs’ breach of contract, fraud, and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Shenzhen Langmi Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 1966, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2026) (Ellis, J.).

Judge Ellis granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to recover damages on a $10,000 TRO bond in this copyright infringement case involving cosmetic product packaging images. The Court found Defendants were entitled to recover the full $10,000 bond amount but refused to allow recovery in excess of the bond or award attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff Langmi, a Chinese cosmetics company, sued thirty-six Amazon sellers for copyright infringement as Doe defendants, later narrowing the case to eight defendants. After obtaining a TRO requiring a $10,000 bond, Langmi pursued a preliminary injunction but ultimately voluntarily dismissed the case. Defendants then moved to recover damages on the bond.

Applying Coyne-Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Dev. Bd. of Ill., 717 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1983), the Court held that a prevailing defendant is entitled to damages on the injunction bond unless there is good reason not to require payment. Langmi’s voluntary dismissal established that Defendants were wrongfully enjoined, and Langmi offered no reason to deny recovery.

The dispute was over whether Defendants could recover damages exceeding the bond. Defendants argued Langmi acted in bad faith in obtaining the TRO, pointing to (1) allegedly false statements in Langmi’s owner’s declaration about when he licensed certain pre-existing images from a Chinese website, and (2) authorization letters Langmi later obtained during the litigation. The Court rejected both arguments.

Defendants’ alleged false statements were premised on metadata. The Court held that Defendants’ counsel’s own interpretation of website metadata was too speculative to support a bad faith finding, citing cases rejecting attorney analysis of metadata as “misplaced and unsupported speculation.” Defendants also submitted an expert declaration from a graphic designer only in their reply brief, which the Court declined to consider it as procedurally improper. The Court also found the graphic designer’s qualifications insufficient, and so it would not have been substantively considered regardless. The expert claimed “considerable experience” reading webpage metadata but provided no details about the nature of that experience or how it informed his conclusions.

On the authorization letters, the Court found while they were likely obtained after the TRO issued, retroactive ratification of an informal license may be permissible under Second Circuit authority.

Notably, the Court admonished Defendants’ counsel for misrepresenting the record, finding that Defendants repeatedly claimed a website representative said Langmi’s owner visited “recently” to obtain authorization letters, when in fact the representative made no such temporal statement.

Finally, the Court denied Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees as procedurally improper because it was raised for the first time in reply.