Middleton Mixology LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations, No. 24 C 12287 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2025) (Kendall, C.J.).

Chief Judge Kendall denied plaintiff Middleton’s motion for preliminary injunction against defendant HzSane in this patent infringement case involving smoker devices for infusing smoke flavor into food and beverages. Middleton alleged HzSane infringed claim 8 of its ‘769 Patent.

The dispute centered on claim construction of “through bore” in Claim 8, which required “a through bore extending from a first end of the body member to an opposite second end” with “opposing open ends along a longitudinal axis.” HzSane argued its product lacked this feature because it had a closed bottom rather than opposing open ends.

The Court found HzSane presented a “substantial question” regarding infringement. While Middleton correctly noted that “comprising” language means the apparatus “includes but is not limited to” listed components, this did not explain how HzSane’s device with a solid base met the “opposing open ends” requirement.

The Court also found Middleton failed to demonstrate irreparable harm beyond speculative assertions of lost goodwill and reputational damage. Without evidence that HzSane’s product was inferior or that customers were actually confused, the Court could not find irreparable harm.

Because Middleton failed to establish likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, the balance of hardships tipped in HzSane’s favor. The Court emphasized that preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary and not awarded of right.