Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Ouyenic, Ltd., ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-03591 

v. ) 

 ) Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey 

Individuals, Partnerships, and 

Unincorporated Associations Identified 

on Schedule “A,” 

 ) 

) 

) 

) 

Hon. Mag. Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes 

 Defendants. ) 

Defendant’s Answer 

NOW COMES Defendant Anymall (“Defendant” or “Anymall”) by and through its undersigned 

counsel, and files this Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to the 

provisions of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Answer. Admit. 

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as Defendants have committed the 

acts as described herein within this judicial district. 

Answer. Defendant admits that venue is proper in this Court. Defendant denies any 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 2. 

3. Upon information and belief, the Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific and general 

jurisdiction due to at least their substantial business in the forum, this business includes: (i) at 

least a portion of the acts complained; (ii) regularly conducting or soliciting business, and/or 

deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Illinois and in 

this Judicial District; and (iii) directly targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, 

by operating one or more commercial, interactive Defendant Internet Stores through which 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:458
Page 2 

Illinois residents can purchase products using infringing versions of Plaintiff’s design patent 

products. Each of the Defendants has targeted sales from Illinois residents by operating online 

stores that offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars 

and, on information and belief, has sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff’s design 

patent to residents of Illinois. Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is 

engaging in interstate commerce, and has wrongfully caused substantial injury in the State of 

Illinois. 

Answer. Defendant admits that it is subject to this Court’s specific jurisdiction. 

Defendant denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 3. 

Parties 

4. Plaintiff, Ouyeinc Ltd., is a Colorado Corporation, with a principal place of business at 36 South 

18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601. 

Answer. Admit. 

5. Defendants are individuals and businesses who conduct business throughout the United States, 

including within Illinois and in this Judicial District, through the operation of the fully interactive 

commercial websites and online marketplaces identified in Schedule A, attached hereto. Each 

Defendant targets the United States, including Illinois, and has offered to sell and/or has sold 

and/or continues to sell infringing products to consumers within the United States, including 

Illinois and in this Judicial District. 

Answer. Defendant admits that it has sold products into this Judicial District. 

Defendant denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 5. 

6. While Defendants’ identities and locations are now unknown to Plaintiff, upon information and 

belief, Defendants are primarily individuals and business entities who reside in the People’s 

Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions. Tactics used by Defendants to conceal their 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:459
Page 3 

identities and the full scope of their infringing operation make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff 

to learn Defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their network. In the event that 

Defendants provide additional credible information regarding their identities, Plaintiff will take 

appropriate steps to amend the Complaint. 

Answer. Defendant admits this it is a Chinese business. Defendant denies any 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 6. 

Background 

7. On January 22, 2019, registration number US D838,859 S (hereinafter “the D’859 Patent”), 

entitled “Wax Warmer,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

(“USPTO”). A true and correct copy of the D’859 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. The D’859 

patent is valid, enforceable and currently in full force and effect. 

Answer. Defendant admits that the D’859 was issued on January 22, 2019. Defendant 

denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 7. 

8. Plaintiff is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title and interest in the D’859 Patent, 

including the right to bring this action and enforce the D’859 Patent against infringers, and to 

collect damages for all relevant times. See Exhibit 2. 

Answer. Defendant is without information to either affirm or deny the allegations of 

Paragraph 8 and therefore denies the same. 

9. Plaintiff designs, manufactures and sells products which incorporate Plaintiff’s patented designs 

(collectively, the “Plaintiff’s Products”). 

Answer. Admit. 

10. Plaintiff’s Products are known for their distinctive patented designs. These designs are broadly 

recognized by consumers. 

Answer. Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:460
Page 4 

11. Plaintiff uses these designs in connection with its Plaintiff’s Products, as shown for example in 

the side-by-side comparison below: 

D’859 Patent Ouyeinc Ltd’s Wax Warmer 

Answer. Denied. 

12. Plaintiff operates a website and also through Amazon platform (collectively “Plaintiff’s selling 

sites”) where it promotes and sells genuine Plaintiff’s Products. Sales of Plaintiff’s Products via 

Plaintiff’s selling sites represent a significant portion of Plaintiff’s business. Plaintiff’s selling sites 

features proprietary content, images and designs exclusive to Plaintiff. 

Answer. Defendant is without information to either affirm or deny the allegations of 

Paragraph 12 and therefore denies the same. 

13. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have created and continue to create numerous 

Amazon.com, AliExpress.com, Alibaba.com, Wish.com and eBay.com stores and design them to 

appear to be selling genuine Pro-Wax100 products, while selling infringing versions of Plaintiff’s 

products. The Amazon.com, AliExpress.com, Alibaba.com, Wish.com andeBay.com stores 

identified in Schedule A appear to be related entities in some cases. Some stores share several 

distinct and unique features such as using nearly identical store designs and using identical 

product pages, including identical pictures and product descriptions. This establishes a logical 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:461
Page 5 

relationship between them suggesting that Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. 

Answer. Denied. 

14. Defendants are individuals and business entities who, upon information and belief, reside in the 

People’s Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions. Defendants conduct business 

throughout the United States, including within Illinois and in this Judicial District, through the 

operation of the fully interactive commercial websites and online marketplaces operating under 

the Amazon.com, AliExpress.com, Alibaba.com, Wish.com and eBay.com stores. Each 

Defendant targets the United States, including Illinois, and has offered to sell and, on 

information and belief, has sold and continues to sell infringing products, to consumers within 

the United States, including Illinois and in this Judicial District. 

Answer. Defendant admits that it is a Chinese business that operates the Amazon 

storefront Anymall. Defendant denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 14. 

Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct 

15. The success of the Plaintiff’s products has resulted in its being infringed upon by a wide range of 

different marketplace stores. Plaintiff has identified numerous marketplace stores on 

Amazon.com, AliExpress.com, Alibaba.com, Wish.com and eBay.com which are offering for 

sale, selling, and importing infringing and unauthorized products to consumers in this Judicial 

District and throughout the United States. Defendants have persisted in creating subsequent 

online Stores. 

Answer. Denied. 

16. Defendants go to great lengths to conceal their identities and often use multiple fictitious names 

and addresses to register and operate their network of Defendant Internet Stores. On 

information and belief, Defendants regularly create new online marketplace accounts on various 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:462
Page 6 

platforms using the identities listed in Schedule A to the Complaint, as well as other unknown 

fictitious names and addresses. Such Defendant Internet Store registration patterns are one of 

many common tactics used by the Defendants to conceal their identities, the full scope and 

interworking of their infringing operations, and to avoid being shut down. 

Answer. Denied. 

17. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, there are numerous 

similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores. For example, infringing products for sale in 

the Defendant Internet Stores bear similar infringing indicia to one another, suggesting that the 

infringing products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that 

Defendants are interrelated. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common 

features, including use of the similar accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, 

illegitimate SEO tactics, lack of contact information, identically or similarly priced items and 

volume sales discounts, the similar incorrect grammar and misspellings, and the use of the 

similar text and images, including content copied from Plaintiff’s product listings. 

Answer. Denied. 

18. In addition to operating under multiple fictitious names, Defendants in this case and defendants 

in other online infringing cases use a variety of methods to evade enforcement efforts including 

simply registering new online marketplace accounts once they receive notice of a lawsuit, and 

operating multiple credit card merchant accounts to evade collection efforts by Plaintiffs armed 

with enforceable judgments. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain off-shore bank 

accounts and regularly move funds from their online money accounts, to offshore bank accounts 

outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Answer. Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:463
Page 7 

19. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have knowingly and willfully 

used and continue to infringe Plaintiff’s design patent in connection with the advertisement, 

distribution, offering for sale, and sale of infringing products into the United States and Illinois 

over the Internet. Each Defendant Amazon.com, AliExpress.com, Alibaba.com, Wish.com and 

eBay.com account shipped infringing products to the United States, including Illinois, and has in 

fact sold or offered for sale the products during the course of Plaintiff’s preliminary 

investigations. 

Answer. Denied. 

20. Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s Design in the making, using, offering for sale, selling, 

and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use of the Infringing Products 

was willful. 

Answer. Denied. 

21. Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s Design in connection with the making, using, offering 

for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use of the 

Infringing Products, including the making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into 

the United States for subsequent sale or use of Infringing Products into Illinois, is irreparably 

harming Plaintiff. 

Answer. Denied. 

Count I 

Design Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271) 

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

Answer. Defendant re-alleges and incorporated by reference each and every answer 

set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:464
Page 8 

23. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States 

for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the 

ornamental design claimed in Plaintiff’s Design. 

Answer. Denied. 

24. Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff’s Design through the aforesaid acts and will continue to 

do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused Plaintiff to suffer 

irreparable harm resulting from the loss of its lawful patent rights to exclude others from 

making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented invention. Plaintiff is entitled 

to injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

Answer. Denied. 

25. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, including 

Defendants’ profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any other 

damages as appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 

Answer. Denied. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs on any of the claims alleged or that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, and Defendants pray that this Court enter judgment in favor of 

Defendants and against Plaintiff and that this Court denies Plaintiff any relief whatsoever. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:465
Page 9 

Separate Affirmative Defenses 

NOW COMES Defendant in response to Plaintiff’s claims states and alleges each of the following 

Affirmative Defenses, to be applied together or in the alternative without assuming the burden of 

proof when such burden would otherwise be on the Plaintiff, as follows: 

1. Patent Non-Infringement. Defendant has not infringed, and currently does not infringe, the 

D’859 Patent directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, under the doctrine of 

equivalents, or in any other manner. 

2. Patent Invalidity. The claim of the D’859 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of 

the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without 

limitation Sections 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 171 thereof. The D’859 Patent claims a priority 

date of September 20, 2017 (the filing date of Application No. 29/618,205), however at least 

three prior art references predate the priority by more than one year: Chinese Patent No. 

303721589S issued June 22, 2016; a YouTube video demonstrating the product allegedly covered 

by the D’859 Patent published on September 11, 2014; and the Amazon.com sale of product 

allegedly covered by the D’859 Patent that was reviewed on April 23, 2015. 

Chinese Patent No. 303721589S 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:466
Page 10 

Screenshot of YouTube video demonstrating the product allegedly covered by the D’859 

Patent published on September 11, 2014, viewable at 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-RVuKMHnmM 

Amazon.com sale of product allegedly covered by the D’859 Patent that was reviewed on 

April 23, 2015 

None of these references were cited by the D’859 Patent’s examiner and completely or partially 

disclose D’859 design which is unpatentable over them. 

3. Functionality. The claims made in the Complaint and the relief sought herein are barred, in 

whole or in part, on the basis that the D’859 Patent design is functional. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:467
Page 11 

4. Laches. The D’859 Patent is unenforceable against Defendant under the doctrine of laches, as 

Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s allegedly-infringing conduct at least as early as May 8, 2019 

and yet delayed bringing suit until June 18, 2020, such delay materially prejudicing Defendant’s 

ability to present a full and fair defense on the merits due to the potential loss of certain records 

and the unreliability of memories of long past events, in addition to materially prejudicing 

Defendant by allowing it to incur monetary damages through the purchase of inventory of the 

allegedly-infringing products after May 8, 2019 which would not have occurred had Plaintiff 

either simply notified Defendant, notified Amazon, or filed suit earlier. 

5. Failure to Mitigate. The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because 

of Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages, if any exist, by, without limitation, failing to act to 

enforce any purported rights in the D’859 prior to filing the lawsuit including, without limitation, 

by sending notice to Defendant of Plaintiff’s claims or initiating any dispute resolution 

procedures administered by Amazon.com directly. 

6. Prosecution History Estoppel. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting any interpretation of any 

valid claim of the D’859 Patent to cover any of Defendant’s products used, imported, sold, or 

offered for sale, and Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to prosecution history 

estoppel and/or disclaimer, including statements, representations, and admissions made during 

prosecution of the D’859 Patent and/or any related patents or patent applications. 

7. Failure to Mark. The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because on 

information and belief Plaintiff failed to properly mark its products as required under 35 U.S.C. 

§§ 286, 287. 

8. No Willful Infringement. Plaintiff’s claims for enhanced damages and an award of fees and 

costs against Defendant has no basis in fact or law and should be denied. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:468
Page 12 

Counterclaims 

Parties 

1. Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff is an e-commerce reseller located in Guangdong, China. 

2. Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant is a is a Colorado Corporation, with a principal place of business 

at 36 South 18th Avenue, Suite A, Brighton, CO 80601. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1338, 2201-2202 as this action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. This Court has 

jurisdiction over the claims in this action that arise under the laws of the State of Illinois 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the state law claims are so related to the federal claims 

that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of 

operative facts. 

4. This Court may exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff as it has already submitted itself to this 

Court’s jurisdiction by filing its lawsuit here. 

5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because 

Plaintiff is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. 

Count I - Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity (U.S. Patent No. US D838,859 S) 

6. Defendant incorporates by reference all admissions it has made in the accompanying Answer 

and Affirmative Defenses. 

7. Defendant is an e-commerce reseller selling products online, including on Amazon.com. 

8. Among other products, Defendant sells personal care wax warmers which generally comprise a 

metal pan, heating element, and housing incorporating a control dial and electrical connections. 

A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s evidence showing the wax warmer product Defendant sold 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:469
Page 13 

9. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging that the use, manufacturing, sale, and 

offer for sale of certain wax warmer devices by defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. D838,859 S 

(the “D’859 Patent”). Defendant has denied such allegations and contends that the D‘859 

Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. 

10. In view of the aforementioned allegations, an actual controversy exists between Defendant and 

Plaintiff concerning the validity, enforceability, and alleged infringement of the D‘859 Patent. 

11. The aforementioned actual controversy, in connection with the use, manufacturing, sale, and 

offer for sale of certain wax warmers by Defendant as alleged, encompasses subject matter of 

the D‘859 Patent. 

12. The D‘859 Patent is invalid as the disclosed and claimed subject matter does not constitute 

invention or discovery within the purview of Article 1A, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States 

Constitution or the Patent Act as set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code. 

13. The claimed design of the D’859 Patent substantially predated, in published fashion, Plaintiff’s 

application for the D’859 Patent by more than the one-year allowed by statutory exceptions. 

First, a video was published to YouTube1 on September 11, 2014 showing in detail the design 

allegedly covered by the D’859 Patent. A true and correct copy of a screenshot of the published 

YouTube video is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 

14. Second, a product allegedly covered by the D’859 was sold on Amazon.com at least as early as 

April 23, 2015. A true and correct copy of a review dated April 23, 2015 for that product is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 

1 The video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-RVuKMHnmM, last accessed May 17, 

2021. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:470
Page 14 

15. Third, the design covered by the D’859 Patent was disclosed in Chinese Patent No. 303721589S 

that issued June 22, 2016. A true and correct copy of the Chinese Patent is attached hereto as 

Exhibit 4. 

16. The above three references are all material prior art which preempt the D’859 Patent. 

17. Alternatively, the above three references, together with the references cited by the examiner 

during prosecution render the claim of the D‘859 Patent obvious to a designer of ordinary skill 

who designs articles of the type involved under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claim(s) of 

the D‘859 Patent are invalid and/or unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., for failing to 

meet the requirements of at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Defendant has been damaged 

through Plaintiff’s assertion of a knowingly invalid patent in an amount which cannot presently 

be ascertained. 

20. The actions of Plaintiff in causing in causing the aforementioned damages were made willfully, 

wantonly and maliciously against Defendant. 

21. Defendant is informed and believe, and therefore avers, that unless restrained by an Order from 

this Court, Plaintiff will continue the aforementioned acts, to Defendant’s irreparable injury, for 

which Defendant has no adequate remedy at law. 

22. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling Defendant to recover reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and other relief. 

Abuse of Process 

23. Defendant incorporates by reference all admissions it has made in the accompanying Answer 

and Affirmative Defenses. 

24. Defendant is an e-commerce reseller selling products online, including on Amazon.com. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:471
Page 15 

25. Among other products, Defendant sells personal care wax warmers which generally comprise a 

metal pan, heating element, and housing incorporating a control dial and electrical connections. 

A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s evidence showing the wax warmer product Defendant sold 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

26. Defendant is a competitor of Plaintiff, and it is Plaintiff’s best interest that Defendant is not in 

business. 

27. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging that the use, manufacturing, sale, and 

offer for sale of certain wax warmer devices by defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. D838,859 S 

(the “D’859 Patent”). Defendant has denied such allegations and contends that the D‘859 

Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. 

28. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff abused the governmental processes of this Court by 

seeking and maintaining a temporary restraining order to seize Defendant’s assets and prosecute 

this case for extortionate and anti-competitive purposes. 

29. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff performed little if any due diligence and pre-filing fact 

investigation, including with respect to the enforceability of the D’859 Patent. 

30. The entry of the TRO, and its conversion into the preliminary injunction, has disrupted 

Defendant’s business operations as the funds in Defendant’s account which are frozen - 

approximately $433,910 - are necessary for Defendant to conduct its business. 

31. Plaintiff has succeeded in disabling a competitor who was lawfully selling competing products. 

32. Defendant first informed Plaintiff of the aforementioned prior art references on April 27, 2021. 

33. Defendant, also on April 27, 2021, provided to Plaintiff records of the sales of the allegedlyinfringing products, totaling merely $1,321.49. A true and correct copy of that record is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 5. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s notification to Plaintiff of the cited prior 

art references and sales records was a patently unreasonable settlement demand. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:472
Page 16 

34. Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims against Defendant are objectively unreasonable. 

35. Despite being provided with clear evidence of the invalidity of the D’859 Patent on April 27, 

2021, Plaintiff has declined to lift its restraint of Defendant’s property, currently secured by the 

preliminary injunction. 

36. Plaintiff has continued to prosecute this action against its competitor, Defendant, because it 

knows that continued defense will impose substantial costs, particularly which Defendant cannot 

pay from its frozen assets. 

37. At relevant times, Plaintiff has maintained an ulterior purpose to its intellectual property 

enforcement activities; namely, pursuing competitors who are engaging in lawful commerce by, 

with willful blindness, attempting to enforce its invalid patent. 

38. The foregoing acts of Plaintiff constitute an abuse of process under Illinois law. 

39. Plaintiff’s actions in seeking an asset-restraining TRO, converting the TRO into a preliminary 

injunction, and declining to lift at least that asset-restraints therein after Defendant has identified 

the invalid nature of use of the D’859 patent are part of an attempt by Plaintiff to fabricate facts, 

leading to issuance of legal process in an attempt to misuse or pervert regular and lawful court 

process in a tortious and improper way. 

40. Plaintiff’s actions are oppressive because they lack merit and have a high cost of defense, 

particularly where funds which might otherwise be used to pay those costs are unavailable 

because of Plaintiff’s actions. 

41. Plaintiff’s actions in obtaining an asset restraint and continuing to litigate this case against 

Defendant has caused and continue to cause damage to Defendant. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff Anymall prays that this Court: 

A. Deny Plaintiff all relief against Defendant; 

B. Declare that the D’859 Patent is invalid and unenforceable; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:473
Page 17 

C. Declare that Defendant has not infringed the D’859 Patent by the manufacture, use, offer for 

sale, sale, or importation of any products identified in the Amended Complaint, either directly, 

contributorily, or indirectly by inducement, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents; 

D. Enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in an amount, to be proved at trial, 

consisting of the damages suffered by Defendant as a result of Plaintiff’s wrongful conduct 

including but not limited to damages due to the asset restraint and the attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred defending against Plaintiff’s attempts to abuse the process; and 

E. Award Defendant such other and further relief as this as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: May 17, 2021 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/Adam E. Urbanczyk 

Adam E. Urbanczyk 

AU LLC 

564 W. Randolph St. 2nd Floor 

Chicago, IL 60661 

(312) 715-7312 

(312) 646-2501 (fax) 

adamu@au-llc.com 

Counsel for Defendant Anymall

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 101 Filed: 05/17/21 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:474