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

Feit Elec. Co. v. CFL Techs., LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 7, 2021) (Gettleman, J.).

Judge Coleman denied declaratory judgment plaintiff Feit’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal regarding the Court’s denial of Feit’s and granting of declaratory judgment plaintiff CFL’s cross-motion for summary judgment regarding Feit’s inequitable conduct

Ouyeinc, Ltd. v. BAAAAI, et al., No. 20 C 3488, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 13, 2021) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2) & (6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Ouyeinc’s Lanham Act trademark infringement, counterfeiting and false designation claims regarding Ouyeinc’s PRO-WAX100 marks for use with wax warming

Feit Elec. Co., Inc. v. CFL Techs. LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2019) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Feit’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s grant of summary judgement that declaratory judgment defendant CFL’s ‘464 patent was unenforceable  based upon issue preclusion from a prior