Plaintiffs in cases alleging counterfeit products and joining many defendants should use the form proposed orders linked below to assist the Court in reviewing motions for: (1) temporary restraining orders; (2) preliminary injunctions; and (3) default judgments. Plaintiffs should create a redline comparison of their proposed order against the relevant form and attach it as an exhibit to their motion. A proposed order's conformity with the form does not imply that the associated motion will be granted. But plaintiffs should be prepared to explain any differences.

Form of Proposed Temporary Restraining Order
Form of Preliminary Injunction
Form of Default Judgment 

Judge Durkin will presumptively require a bond of $1,000 per defendant in counterfeit product cases. Plaintiffs should inform the Court of any circumstances that make such a bond inapporpriate.

The Court requires that any motion for a temporary restraining order and/or asset freeze is accompanied by a declaration from an attorney of record that provides the following information. First, to demonstrate the immediate harm necessary to grant the drastic remedy of an ex parte temporary restraining order, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant has sold or offered to sell the allegedly infringing product(s) within the last two months and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Generally, evidence that a defendant has sold or offered to sell the infringing products within the last two months may include: (1) screenshots of the listings collected within the last two months; (2) screenshots older than two months with an attestation that the listings reflected in the screenshots have been checked within the last two months and were active; or (3) evidence of a purchase by a customer in Illinois within the last two months. Second, as relevant to personal jurisdiction, without which any temporary restraining order or asset freeze would be invalid, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant sold at least one allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Here, "sold" means that the defendant accepted an order and payment for an allegedly infringing product to be shipped to Illinois. Third, to assure that Court that the rights of defendants who have not yet been served are being appropriately protected, the declaration must identify the case number(s) and assigned judge(s) for any pending case(s) brought by the plaintiff(s) against any of the named defendants, noting whether the intellectual property at issue was the same or different than in this case. If it is the same, the declaration should describe the disposition of the other case. The Court will address any motion for a temporary restraining order only after receipt of the described declaration, which can be filed contemporaneously with the motion.

In any motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in a utility patent case, Plaintiffs should not seek an asset restraint unless Plaintiffs can show that the Court’s order in case 24-cv-1211 at Docket No. 67 does not apply.

Plaintiffs should review the Court’s prior orders on relevant issues such as joinder, personal jurisdiction, and irreparable harm:

• Harley-Davidson v. The Partnerships, 25 C 00808, Dkt. #28 (Mar. 4. 2025).
•  NBA Properties v. The Partnerships, 24 C 12548, Dkt. # 27, Jan. 3, 2025.
• Gabrielle Delgado v. The Partnerships, 24 C 11940, Dkt. # 17, Dec. 19, 2024.
• Shenzhen Nanliu Optoelectronic Technology v. The Individuals, 24 C 11654, Dkt. #15, Dec. 16, 2024.
• Shenzhen Nanliu Optoelectronic Technology v. The Individuals, 24 C 11654, Dkt. #11, Nov. 14, 2024.
• Zhaoshi Tang v. The Partnerships, 2024 WL 68332, 23 C 4587, Dkt. #88, Jan. 4, 2024.
• Roblox Corp. v. Bigfinz, 2023 WL 8258653, 23 C 5346, Dkt. #85, Nov. 29, 2023.