Ryford H. Estores, et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, No. 25-cv-06151, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2025) (Wood, J.).

Judge Wood denied plaintiffs’ amended motion for temporary restraining order in this design patent infringement case involving a foldable three-way mirror.

The Court held that plaintiffs misconceived their design patent’s

Eicher Motors Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 25-cv-02937 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.).

Judge Kness denied plaintiff Eicher Motors’ motion for ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in this Schedule A trademark case, finding that the routine granting of preliminary injunctive relief without adversarial proceedings violates

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

Venus Labs., Inc. d/b/a Earth Friendly Prods. v. Vlahakis, No. 15 C 1617, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2015) (Blakey, J.).

Judge Blakey granted plaintiff Venus Laboratories d/b/a Earth Friendly Products’ (“EFP”) motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and continued EFP’s request for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) in this Lanham Act dispute

Dental USA, Inc. v. McClellan, No. 13 C 260, Slip OP. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2013) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel granted in part plaintiff Dental USA’s motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in this trademark and design patent infringement case.  Dental USA had a trademark for DENTAL USA, as well as POWER

Algierz, Inc. v. The Source of Apparel, Inc., et al., No. 12 C 5361, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2012) (Chang, J.).

Judge Chang ruled upon plaintiff Algierz’s motion to extend temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) and for preliminary injunctions (“PIs”) in this patent case as follows:

  • The Court denied to extend the TRO

Bernina of Am., Inc. v. Imageline, Inc., No. 10 C 44917, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte issued an order in response to defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The Court cautioned that even though individual defendant Riddick was the sole officer and employee of each co-defendant, the corporate defendants required representation because a corporation cannot represent itself pro se.
The Court gave defendants time to identify whether Riddick was a lawyer and to find new counsel, if not. Until that time, the corporate defendants were treated as non-responding parties to plaintiff’s injunction motions.

Continue Reading Individual Defendant May Not Appear Pro Se on Behalf of His Related Party Co-Defendants