Putianshi Lichengqu Zhengchangpai E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Shuangfeng County Shuangwei Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., No. 23 C 2650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2025) (Alonso, J.).

Judge Alonso dismissed this declaratory judgment patent infringement case after finding that plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness committed perjury during deposition. In this case involving design patents for silicon sleeve

Hypertherm, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, No. 24 CV 11340, (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2025) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Hypertherm’s motion for default judgment in this Schedule A patent infringement case involving plasma arc cutter replacement parts. While finding defendants liable for patent infringement and awarding $46,146.60

NS, Inc. v. The Partnerships, No. 25 CV 00596, (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2025) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman, in this Schedule A case, granted in part and denied in part plaintiff NewAge Supply’s motion for default judgment against five defaulting defendants accused of selling counterfeit products bearing plaintiff’s PROFITNESS trademarks. While finding defendants liable for

Dorna Sports, S.L. v. The Individuals, et al., No. 24 CV 11676, (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2025) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman entered default but denied default judgment in this Schedule A trademark case, finding that plaintiff Dorna Sports failed to establish a legitimate cause of action despite defendants’ default. The Court held that conclusory

Amorepacific Corp. v. Juanhe Co. Ltd., No. 24 CV 12417 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2025) (Jenkins, J.).

Judge Jenkins granted plaintiff Amorepacific’s summary judgment motion against defendant Juanhe for trademark infringement and false designation of origin involving the LANEIGE beauty brand.

The Court found no genuine dispute that Juanhe used the LANEIGE mark without authorization

Topsteptrader, LLC v. OneUp Trader, LLC, No. 17 C 4412, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2017) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber denied plaintiff Topsteptrader’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin defendant OneUp Trader from continuing to operate its website and its business, principally because Topsteptrader did not meet its burden

Topsteptrader, LLC v. OneUp Trader, LLC, No. 17 C 4412, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2017) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber denied plaintiff Topsteptrader’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin defendant OneUp Trader from continuing to operate its website and its business, principally because Topsteptrader did not meet its burden