Dao Health v. Shenzhen Lutejiacheng Technology Co., Ltd., No. 23 C 4885 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2025) (Durkin, J.)

Judge Durkin construed seven disputed terms across three patents involving a hands-free breast milk collection device and a related valve, rejecting indefiniteness challenges and clarifying several scope disputes in this patent matter.

Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

  • “External suction source” – Construed with reference to the reservoir, not the bra. The pump must be external to the reservoir’s internal volume but need not be external to the bra. The Court relied on the claim’s juxtaposition of “within” (for the adaptor) and “external” (for the suction source), harmonized with the specification and prosecution history.
  • “A reduced volume … formed within said drip tube” – Not indefinite. The drip tube constitutes a reduced volume within the reservoir that can be closed via a valve to generate vacuum. The Court found the physical configuration coherent and comprehensible to a POSITA.
  • “A valve assembly” – Construed as “an assembly of multiple parts forming a valve,” consistent with the specification’s description of multiple components (e.g., valve body, valve cap, valve flap) and embodiments including overflow chamber and baffle or an alternative bladder design.
  • “A valve assembly disposed between and surrounded by the adaptor and the reservoir” – Given its plain meaning, “between” and “surrounded by” are not contradictory.
  • Distal-end aperture – The phrase “a distal end of said drip tube having an aperture adjacent the distal end” carries its plain meaning; no need to add “structure” to force a closed-end reading.
  • Functional “cyclical application and relief” and antecedent issues – The Court treated “said” before “vacuum pressure” and “cycle portion” as typographical errors; read in light of the specification, a POSITA would understand the pump supplies the alternating vacuum.
  • “Through said interior chamber” – Any antecedent issue resolved by context from claim 2 and the surrounding claim language; sufficiently definite.

Collectively, the Court favored text-anchored, specification-consistent readings and was reluctant to find indefiniteness where a POSITA could readily understand the claims in context.

Dao Health v. Shenzhen Lutejiacheng Technology Co., Ltd., No. 23 C 4885 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2025) (Durkin, J.)

Judge Durkin denied Shenzhen’s motion to amend to add inequitable conduct counterclaims, holding the proposed amendments were futile for failure to plead but-for materiality and specific intent under the Federal Circuit’s tightened Therasense standard.

Shenzhen alleged omissions relating to inventorship for earlier patents and a certification issue for a later patent. The Court found no plausible allegations that the Patent Office would not have issued the patents but for the alleged misconduct. The proposed claims focused on purported pecuniary motives and presentation issues, not but-for materiality as Therasense requires.

Fendi S.R.L. v. Schedule A Defendants, No. 25 C 14553, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2025) (Coleman, J.)

Judge Coleman dismissed Fendi’s Schedule A trademark/copyright complaint without prejudice for lack of specific personal jurisdiction and improper joinder after the Court raised the issues sua sponte.

While not reaching the merits of Lanham Act or copyright claims, the Court’s jurisdictional and joinder holdings have immediate significance for Schedule A litigation. The Court reiterated that operating an interactive website alone does not suffice; plaintiffs typically must show at least one Illinois sale and shipment or equivalent purposeful availment tied to the forum.

Joinder also faced heightened scrutiny. Alleging common infringement of the same marks is insufficient to join disparate sellers. Even a “unified sales script” theory failed without concrete, non-conclusory facts tying defendants’ conduct into the same transaction or occurrence or series thereof.

On April 17, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., the Asian American Bar Association of Chicago (AABA Chicago) in collaboration with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, will host a complimentary webinar focusing on federal motion practice. 

This special program, part of the Sidebar with Judge Kim series, will feature an engaging discussion moderated by Judge Kim and an outstanding panel of Federal Judges including Hon. Manish Shah, Hon. LaShonda Hunt, and Hon. Heather McShain.

This event offers attendees a unique opportunity to learn from experienced judges and gain a deeper understanding of motion practice.  To register, click here.

HFT Solutions, LLC v. Citadel Securities LLC, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2025) (Coleman, J.)

Judge Coleman denied defendant Citadel’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss HFT’s patent case holding that the asserted field programmable gate array (FPGA)-based claims plausibly recite a specific technological improvement and are not directed to an abstract idea under Section 101. FPGAs are microchips that allow for rapid data processing by spreading computations across a chip with “massive fine-grained parallelism.”

The asserted method and system claims, centered on FPGA architectures that use a phase-locked loop to synchronize clock signals and reduce latency. As an initial matter, the Court accepted Citadel’s argument that identified claims were representative of all of the claims, in part because plaintiff HFT did not challenge Citadel’s assumption. Citadel also showed the claims were substantially similar and linked to the same concept. The Court then applied the Alice framework to the representative claims concluding that at step one of the Alice analysis the claims are directed to a concrete improvement in computer technology, not generic “data manipulation” or “synchronizing data processing with a clock.”

Even if abstract, the Court held the claims would survive Alice step two because they recite a non-conventional arrangement of known components—an inventive concept—aimed at solving latency issues inherent in prior art FPGA systems

Innovation Indus., LLC v. The Schedule A P’ships, Slip. Op., No. 25 C 3157 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025) (Bucklo, J.)

Judge Bucklo granted in part a motion by appearing defendants to vacate a preliminary injunction entered in a “Schedule A” copyright case involving alleged copying of a staged product photo depicting a hummingbird feeder heater operating in freezing conditions. The Court reaffirmed the preliminary injunction (PI) but narrowed the related asset freeze to specific gross-revenue amounts attributable to listings using the infringing image.

Regarding likelihood of success, the Court found prima facie validity based upon timely copyright registration in the absence of any evidence disputing ownership. The Court rejected arguments that inclusion of a publicly available weather monitor undermined originality. The Court emphasized that a photograph’s protectable originality often lies in its rendition – composition, timing, angle, lighting, and subject placement – rather than in individual components. Regarding “actual copying,” the Court concluded that access and probative similarity were shown: the accused image created the same overall impression, including the identical digital readout on the weather monitor, an alignment unlikely by coincidence. Regarding “wrongful copying,” an ordinary observer would conclude defendants appropriated the protectable expressive elements of the staged winter scene, satisfying the Seventh Circuit’s substantial similarity standard.

The Court also credited irreparable harm, including lost exclusivity and goodwill risks from identical imagery in competing listings, and balanced the equities in plaintiff’s favor as to continued injunctive relief.

The Court also narrowed the asset freeze. Citing the equitable nature of asset freezes tied to an accounting of profits, the Court limited the restraint to the specific gross revenue amounts Amazon reported for each appearing defendant. The Court placed the burden on defendants to prove assets are not traceable to infringing activity and treated gross revenue as an upper bound where profit evidence is lacking.

Two procedural points are noteworthy. First, in photographic copyright cases, defendants should expect that staging and rendition choices may, but do not always, readily establish originality; challenging protectability of individual objects is unlikely to carry the day. Second, courts in the Northern District increasingly calibrate asset restraints to quantified proceeds tied to alleged infringement, not broader account freezes. Plaintiffs should marshal platform revenue data early; defendants seeking to limit or minimize freezes must supply documentation establishing non-infringing sources and actual profits.

Janssen Prods., L.P. & Pharma Mar, S.A. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, et al., Slip Op, 24 C 7319 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2025) (McNally, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge McNally denied defendants’ motion to issue letters of request under the Hague Evidence Convention seeking documents and depositions from three foreign inventors and a Netherlands research institute related to the asserted patent.

Applying the comity analysis recognized in Aerospatiale and its progeny, the Court found the proposed letters lacking on multiple fronts:

  • insufficiently tailored to issues of infringement and validity;
  • overly broad and vague (including sweeping requests about undefined “foreign counterparts” and “any” trabectedin formulations); and
  • unjustified in light of available alternatives, including laboratory notebooks and records already produced by Pharma Mar and testimony from a co-inventor still employed by the patentee.

Defendants did not tie specific requests to specific issues or explain why inventor-level materials abroad would materially differ from, or be necessary beyond, what had been produced domestically.

The Court also addressed timing. With fact discovery closing in about six weeks, the Court found it “almost certainly” impossible to timely complete the Hague processes, especially given the breadth of the requests and likely foreign challenges. Respecting comity includes avoiding futile burdens on foreign courts where the U.S. case schedule renders relief impractical.

This decision delivers several strategic lessons for litigators seeking foreign discovery. First, importance is distinct from relevance: parties must articulate why each specific item is necessary to adjudicate particular issues, not merely that inventors “may have” relevant information. Second, specificity is paramount: define counterpart patents precisely, cabin requests to the claimed subject matter, and limit deposition topics to discrete areas. Third, alternatives matter: account for what has been produced, what a domestic co-inventor can supply, and why additional foreign evidence is indispensable. Finally, timing and case management are dispositive—Hague requests should be targeted, sequenced early, and harmonized with the discovery schedule to avoid denial on practicality and comity grounds.

On April 1, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Asian American Bar Association of Chicago (AABA Chicago) in collaboration with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, will host a listening party and reception for the live‑streamed Supreme Court oral argument in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365.

This event offers attendees a unique opportunity to experience and engage with an oral argument in real time addressing whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies with the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).  The Executive Order provides that children born to temporary visitors or undocumented parents are not U.S. citizens by birth and directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documentation for such children born more than 30 days after the Order’s effective date.

The event will take place in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the Everett M. Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn Street, 25th Floor.  Light refreshments will be provided courtesy of AABA Chicago.  Space is limited, and advance registration is required for this complimentary event.  Click here to register.

Feit Elec. Co., Inc. v. CFL Techs., LLC, Slip Op., No. 13 C 9339, (N.D. Ill. Kendall, C.J. & McShain, Mag. J.) (Oct. 22, 2025).

Chief Judge Kendall affirmed Magistrate Judge McShain’s order denying declaratory judgment defendant and patentholder CFL Technologies’ (CFL) motion to compel and for spoliation sanctions. The decision is a cautionary tale on timeliness and strategy in complex patent litigation, particularly in increasingly common long-stayed, complex patent cases.

CFL sought broad discovery concerning “all non-dimmable Feit CFLs,” vendor identities, and confidential materials under Local Patent Rule 1.4’s default protective order, reviving disputes first raised in 2018 but not pursued until nine-and-a-half months after a discovery stay was lifted in 2021. The Magistrate denied the motion as untimely and later declined CFL’s sanctions motion. The District Court affirmed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)’s deferential “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard.

The Court affirmed that district courts have broad discretion to deny motions to compel for undue delay, even before discovery closes. The Court cataloged extended periods of inaction, party representations that no ripe disputes existed, and the reality that resolving the motion would force a discovery extension—previously denied for lack of good cause. Arguments that CFL prioritized other litigation issues, or believed a meet-and-confer resolved long-pending disputes, were insufficient. The Court also confirmed that parties cannot defer motion practice on foundational disputes while negotiating protective orders late in discovery and then salvage delay by claiming a new “impasse.”

On sanctions, the Court upheld denial of an adverse inference for alleged spoliation of product samples. The Court required evidence of intentional destruction in bad faith to conceal adverse evidence—a stringent standard that mere unavailability of samples does not satisfy, especially where product lines sunset over time and the later-accused products were not identified until years into the case.

Two practitioner takeaways stand out. First, timeliness is measured by the totality of conduct: delay length, explanations, and contemporaneous actions. Courts in the Northern District often, although not always, deny late-arising motions that would require reopening discovery absent compelling justification. Second, Rule 72(a) review is a high bar—objections must demonstrate misapplication of law or clear factual error, not merely disagreement with case management decisions. Strategically, preserving discovery disputes contemporaneously, documenting meet-and-confers, and moving promptly where impasse is evident are best practices, recognizing that each of those is a somewhat subjective requirement.

Quiju Chen v. John Does 1–10, et al., No. 25 C 6611, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2025) (Tharp, J.).

In an omnibus order Judge Tharp resolved a number of motions in a Lanham Act trademark “Schedule A” Doe case, providing helpful guidance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 pleading sufficiency, the standard and burdens for dissolving a Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 preliminary injunction (PI), the handling of Rule 12(b)(1) factual jurisdictional challenges, and Rule 11 sanctions.

The Court denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions, finding the complaint met Rule 8’s plausibility standard by alleging a valid registration, unauthorized use in commerce via online marketplaces, and likelihood of confusion. The Court reasoned that at the pleadings stage, well-pled ownership and use/confusion allegations need not include granular transaction-level particulars to survive dismissal in Lanham Act claims, particularly where the allegations identify marketplace conduct directed at U.S. consumers.

On the motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction, the Court applied the Seventh Circuit’s Centurion framework, reaffirming that courts consider the same factors as in granting injunctive relief. As an initial matter, the Court held that in this instance defendant bears the burden to show dissolution is warranted. The Court rejected defendant’s attempt to shift the burden based on the injunction’s origins as a temporary restraining order (TRO) because the TRO was converted to a preliminary injunction after notice and an opportunity to respond, which defendant chose to ignore. Practically, the ruling signals that defendants seeking to dissolve previously noticed injunctions must make a substantive showing negating likelihood of success and irreparable harm at least where they had notice before the PI was issued; bare assertions of ownership disputes or generalized hardship will not suffice to reverse a PI once issued.

On Rule 12(b)(1), the Court rejected a factual standing challenge, holding the plaintiff’s registration materials sufficed at the Rule 12 stage to establish a protectable interest, and defendants did not carry their burden to show a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court also denied Rule 11 sanctions, emphasizing that the complaint’s survival under Rules 12(b)(1) & (6) undermines claims that the filing was frivolous or for an improper purpose.

Finally, the Court granted in part a motion to strike foreign-language exhibits lacking certified translations under Fed. Rule of Evidence 604 and declined to revisit an administrative text entry issue after missed deadlines.

For practitioners, two procedural points stand out. First, when litigating motions to dissolve, anticipate a re-weighing of the factors with the moving party carrying the laboring oar absent a lack of notice to defendant in the underlying injunctive proceedings. Second, registration evidence continues to provide strong early-stage grounding for standing and Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency; defendants challenging ownership should be prepared with competent proof, not mere competing assertions.