Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Ltd. v. Floerns, No. 1:24-cv-02939 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 31, 2025) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly denied plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider an earlier summary judgment order that disposed of plaintiff’s copyright, Lanham Act, and state-law claims, emphasizing diligence and record consistency in post-judgment practice in this copyright dispute.

The Court previously held that no reasonable factfinder could find valid ownership of the photos at issue because plaintiff lacked the required written agreement for “work made for hire,” overcoming the registration presumption.

Plaintiff sought reconsideration with “newly discovered” evidence, including a declaration and a late-executed assignment. The Court held Rule 59(e) relief was unavailable because the evidence was discoverable with reasonable diligence before judgment and, in any event, the post-judgment assignment did not exist at the time of the ruling. The Court also noted plaintiff did not pursue Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) relief when ownership was squarely raised at summary judgment and highlighted inconsistencies between the new story and earlier interrogatory responses and briefing, which had described third-party studio photography and paid work outside the asserted employment structure.

Seasonal Specialties, LLC v. Holiday Designs, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-14008 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2025) (Kness, J.).

Judge Kness ruled on claim construction in a patent dispute over pre-lit Christmas tree lighting making clear the Court’s preference for plain and ordinary meaning where the intrinsic record resolved the parties’ disagreements without requiring any constructions. Applying Phillips and O2 Micro, the Court held no further construction was necessary for six disputed terms across two patents, including “an illumination element,” “a first switching circuit … a second switching circuit,” and “special lighting effect.” The court also rejected an indefiniteness challenge to “blinking” and “twinkling,” finding the Nautilus standard satisfied because a person of ordinary skill, informed by the claims and specification, would understand the scope with reasonable certainty. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

  • Illumination Element – The Court concluded that the claim language itself—particularly the use of “said illumination element” in functional limitations—already required at least one element capable of performing all recited functions, rendering a reworded construction unnecessary.
  • First and Second Switching Circuits – The separation of first and second switching circuits coupled with their distinct roles as described in the claims and specification, made clear that two distinct circuits are required, even if implemented on the same board or package. And because the claims already delineate the transition from an initial steady-on state to “special lighting effects,” any further paraphrasing risked confusing rather than clarifying the jury.

The Court cited Vivid Techs. to avoid “an obligatory exercise in redundancy” and declined to add narrowing language absent lexicography or clear disavowal (Thorner). The Court also treated “blinking” and “twinkling” as examples of lighting sequences described in the specification, rejecting a § 112(b) indefiniteness argument for lack of “objective boundaries” where the intrinsic record adequately cabins meaning under Nautilus.

Dao Health v. Shenzhen Lutejiacheng Technology Co., Ltd., No. 23 C 4885 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2025) (Durkin, J.)

Judge Durkin construed seven disputed terms across three patents involving a hands-free breast milk collection device and a related valve, rejecting indefiniteness challenges and clarifying several scope disputes in this patent matter.

Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

  • “External suction source” – Construed with reference to the reservoir, not the bra. The pump must be external to the reservoir’s internal volume but need not be external to the bra. The Court relied on the claim’s juxtaposition of “within” (for the adaptor) and “external” (for the suction source), harmonized with the specification and prosecution history.
  • “A reduced volume … formed within said drip tube” – Not indefinite. The drip tube constitutes a reduced volume within the reservoir that can be closed via a valve to generate vacuum. The Court found the physical configuration coherent and comprehensible to a POSITA.
  • “A valve assembly” – Construed as “an assembly of multiple parts forming a valve,” consistent with the specification’s description of multiple components (e.g., valve body, valve cap, valve flap) and embodiments including overflow chamber and baffle or an alternative bladder design.
  • “A valve assembly disposed between and surrounded by the adaptor and the reservoir” – Given its plain meaning, “between” and “surrounded by” are not contradictory.
  • Distal-end aperture – The phrase “a distal end of said drip tube having an aperture adjacent the distal end” carries its plain meaning; no need to add “structure” to force a closed-end reading.
  • Functional “cyclical application and relief” and antecedent issues – The Court treated “said” before “vacuum pressure” and “cycle portion” as typographical errors; read in light of the specification, a POSITA would understand the pump supplies the alternating vacuum.
  • “Through said interior chamber” – Any antecedent issue resolved by context from claim 2 and the surrounding claim language; sufficiently definite.

Collectively, the Court favored text-anchored, specification-consistent readings and was reluctant to find indefiniteness where a POSITA could readily understand the claims in context.

Dao Health v. Shenzhen Lutejiacheng Technology Co., Ltd., No. 23 C 4885 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2025) (Durkin, J.)

Judge Durkin denied Shenzhen’s motion to amend to add inequitable conduct counterclaims, holding the proposed amendments were futile for failure to plead but-for materiality and specific intent under the Federal Circuit’s tightened Therasense standard.

Shenzhen alleged omissions relating to inventorship for earlier patents and a certification issue for a later patent. The Court found no plausible allegations that the Patent Office would not have issued the patents but for the alleged misconduct. The proposed claims focused on purported pecuniary motives and presentation issues, not but-for materiality as Therasense requires.

Fendi S.R.L. v. Schedule A Defendants, No. 25 C 14553, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2025) (Coleman, J.)

Judge Coleman dismissed Fendi’s Schedule A trademark/copyright complaint without prejudice for lack of specific personal jurisdiction and improper joinder after the Court raised the issues sua sponte.

While not reaching the merits of Lanham Act or copyright claims, the Court’s jurisdictional and joinder holdings have immediate significance for Schedule A litigation. The Court reiterated that operating an interactive website alone does not suffice; plaintiffs typically must show at least one Illinois sale and shipment or equivalent purposeful availment tied to the forum.

Joinder also faced heightened scrutiny. Alleging common infringement of the same marks is insufficient to join disparate sellers. Even a “unified sales script” theory failed without concrete, non-conclusory facts tying defendants’ conduct into the same transaction or occurrence or series thereof.

On April 17, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., the Asian American Bar Association of Chicago (AABA Chicago) in collaboration with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, will host a complimentary webinar focusing on federal motion practice. 

This special program, part of the Sidebar with Judge Kim series, will feature an engaging discussion moderated by Judge Kim and an outstanding panel of Federal Judges including Hon. Manish Shah, Hon. LaShonda Hunt, and Hon. Heather McShain.

This event offers attendees a unique opportunity to learn from experienced judges and gain a deeper understanding of motion practice.  To register, click here.

HFT Solutions, LLC v. Citadel Securities LLC, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2025) (Coleman, J.)

Judge Coleman denied defendant Citadel’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss HFT’s patent case holding that the asserted field programmable gate array (FPGA)-based claims plausibly recite a specific technological improvement and are not directed to an abstract idea under Section 101. FPGAs are microchips that allow for rapid data processing by spreading computations across a chip with “massive fine-grained parallelism.”

The asserted method and system claims, centered on FPGA architectures that use a phase-locked loop to synchronize clock signals and reduce latency. As an initial matter, the Court accepted Citadel’s argument that identified claims were representative of all of the claims, in part because plaintiff HFT did not challenge Citadel’s assumption. Citadel also showed the claims were substantially similar and linked to the same concept. The Court then applied the Alice framework to the representative claims concluding that at step one of the Alice analysis the claims are directed to a concrete improvement in computer technology, not generic “data manipulation” or “synchronizing data processing with a clock.”

Even if abstract, the Court held the claims would survive Alice step two because they recite a non-conventional arrangement of known components—an inventive concept—aimed at solving latency issues inherent in prior art FPGA systems

Innovation Indus., LLC v. The Schedule A P’ships, Slip. Op., No. 25 C 3157 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025) (Bucklo, J.)

Judge Bucklo granted in part a motion by appearing defendants to vacate a preliminary injunction entered in a “Schedule A” copyright case involving alleged copying of a staged product photo depicting a hummingbird feeder heater operating in freezing conditions. The Court reaffirmed the preliminary injunction (PI) but narrowed the related asset freeze to specific gross-revenue amounts attributable to listings using the infringing image.

Regarding likelihood of success, the Court found prima facie validity based upon timely copyright registration in the absence of any evidence disputing ownership. The Court rejected arguments that inclusion of a publicly available weather monitor undermined originality. The Court emphasized that a photograph’s protectable originality often lies in its rendition – composition, timing, angle, lighting, and subject placement – rather than in individual components. Regarding “actual copying,” the Court concluded that access and probative similarity were shown: the accused image created the same overall impression, including the identical digital readout on the weather monitor, an alignment unlikely by coincidence. Regarding “wrongful copying,” an ordinary observer would conclude defendants appropriated the protectable expressive elements of the staged winter scene, satisfying the Seventh Circuit’s substantial similarity standard.

The Court also credited irreparable harm, including lost exclusivity and goodwill risks from identical imagery in competing listings, and balanced the equities in plaintiff’s favor as to continued injunctive relief.

The Court also narrowed the asset freeze. Citing the equitable nature of asset freezes tied to an accounting of profits, the Court limited the restraint to the specific gross revenue amounts Amazon reported for each appearing defendant. The Court placed the burden on defendants to prove assets are not traceable to infringing activity and treated gross revenue as an upper bound where profit evidence is lacking.

Two procedural points are noteworthy. First, in photographic copyright cases, defendants should expect that staging and rendition choices may, but do not always, readily establish originality; challenging protectability of individual objects is unlikely to carry the day. Second, courts in the Northern District increasingly calibrate asset restraints to quantified proceeds tied to alleged infringement, not broader account freezes. Plaintiffs should marshal platform revenue data early; defendants seeking to limit or minimize freezes must supply documentation establishing non-infringing sources and actual profits.

Janssen Prods., L.P. & Pharma Mar, S.A. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, et al., Slip Op, 24 C 7319 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2025) (McNally, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge McNally denied defendants’ motion to issue letters of request under the Hague Evidence Convention seeking documents and depositions from three foreign inventors and a Netherlands research institute related to the asserted patent.

Applying the comity analysis recognized in Aerospatiale and its progeny, the Court found the proposed letters lacking on multiple fronts:

  • insufficiently tailored to issues of infringement and validity;
  • overly broad and vague (including sweeping requests about undefined “foreign counterparts” and “any” trabectedin formulations); and
  • unjustified in light of available alternatives, including laboratory notebooks and records already produced by Pharma Mar and testimony from a co-inventor still employed by the patentee.

Defendants did not tie specific requests to specific issues or explain why inventor-level materials abroad would materially differ from, or be necessary beyond, what had been produced domestically.

The Court also addressed timing. With fact discovery closing in about six weeks, the Court found it “almost certainly” impossible to timely complete the Hague processes, especially given the breadth of the requests and likely foreign challenges. Respecting comity includes avoiding futile burdens on foreign courts where the U.S. case schedule renders relief impractical.

This decision delivers several strategic lessons for litigators seeking foreign discovery. First, importance is distinct from relevance: parties must articulate why each specific item is necessary to adjudicate particular issues, not merely that inventors “may have” relevant information. Second, specificity is paramount: define counterpart patents precisely, cabin requests to the claimed subject matter, and limit deposition topics to discrete areas. Third, alternatives matter: account for what has been produced, what a domestic co-inventor can supply, and why additional foreign evidence is indispensable. Finally, timing and case management are dispositive—Hague requests should be targeted, sequenced early, and harmonized with the discovery schedule to avoid denial on practicality and comity grounds.

On April 1, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Asian American Bar Association of Chicago (AABA Chicago) in collaboration with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, will host a listening party and reception for the live‑streamed Supreme Court oral argument in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365.

This event offers attendees a unique opportunity to experience and engage with an oral argument in real time addressing whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies with the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).  The Executive Order provides that children born to temporary visitors or undocumented parents are not U.S. citizens by birth and directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documentation for such children born more than 30 days after the Order’s effective date.

The event will take place in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the Everett M. Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn Street, 25th Floor.  Light refreshments will be provided courtesy of AABA Chicago.  Space is limited, and advance registration is required for this complimentary event.  Click here to register.