Meihua Yan v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 24 C 5403, (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2025) (Ellis, J.).

Judge Ellis granted in part defendant Forious’ Rule 11 motion and dismissed plaintiff Meihua Yan’s design patent infringement claims with prejudice as a sanction for a pattern of misrepresentations to the Court and abuse of the judicial process in this Schedule A case involving faucet design patents.

Yan sued 32 entities for allegedly infringing her design patent for a faucet set. The Court initially granted an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and then a preliminary injunction (PI), freezing defendants’ assets in its amazon accounts. When defendant Forious vigorously contested the claims, the Court increased Yan’s bond for its injunction from $10k to $320k. Unable to post the increased bond, Yan moved to dissolve the injunctions.

The Court found Yan engaged in sanctionable conduct by:

  • Deliberately misrepresenting her relationship with Heshan KES Sanitary Ware Limited, denying she owned the company when evidence showed she owned 99.0099% of its shares.
  • Repeatedly changing her story about the ownership of the KES Amazon store as Forious uncovered additional evidence proving ownership.
  • Failing to comply with Court orders and missing numerous deadlines.
  • Attempting to avoid responsibility for damages caused by the TRO through obfuscation.

The Court dismissed Yan’s claims with prejudice under both Rule 11 and its inherent authority, finding that Yan’s conduct went beyond “clumsy lawyering” to constitute bad faith litigation tactics. The Court noted it had given Yan numerous warnings about her litigation strategy “spiraling out of control,” including expressing that the Court’s “patience with this case [was] coming to a close.”

The Court emphasized that Yan appeared to have filed her case without appreciating she may have to file a bond to prosecute her case in the manner she wanted, and then engaged in a “shell game” to avoid paying for damages caused by a TRO that should not have been entered.

The Court also denied Yan’s motion to reduce the bond from $320k down to $46k, noting the bond must account for potential damages to all wrongfully enjoined defendants, not just Forious. The Court also denied Forious’ request for attorney’s fees, finding dismissal with prejudice sufficient punishment.