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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has announced that it will sit in Chicago during its October 2026 session. The Court will also convene its regular session in Washington, D.C.

Panels of the court will hear arguments at the federal courthouse and at the following Chicago-area law schools from Monday, October 5 through Thursday, October 8, 2026:

October 5, 2026
DePaul University College of Law
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

October 6, 2026
Chicago-Kent College of Law
University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

October 7, 2026
Loyola University Chicago School of Law
University of Chicago Law School

October 8, 2026 (two panels)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Cases scheduled for the October 2026 session will be posted on the court’s website once finalized.

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.