IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

OAKLEY, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ALL-INBIKE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-03542 

Judge Robert W. Gettleman 

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY 

INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley” or “Plaintiff”) submits this Memorandum in support of its 

Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), including a temporary 

injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery (the “Ex Parte Motion”). 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:2216
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................. 1 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 2 

A. Oakley Products and Patented Design ....................................................................... 2 

B. Defendants’ Unlawful Activities ............................................................................... 2 

III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 3 

A. Standard for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ................... 4 

B. Oakley Will Likely Succeed on the Merits ................................................................ 5 

C. There Is No Adequate Remedy at Law, and Oakley Will Suffer Irreparable Harm in 

the Absence of Preliminary Relief ............................................................................. 5 

D. The Balancing of Harms Tips in Oakley’s Favor, and the Public Interest Is Served 

by Entry of the Injunction .......................................................................................... 8 

IV. THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT IS APPROPRIATE .............................................. 9 

A. A Temporary Restraining Order Immediately Enjoining Defendants’ Unauthorized 

and Unlawful Use of the Oakley Design Is Appropriate ........................................... 9 

B. Preventing the Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Is Appropriate ................................. 10 

C. Oakley Is Entitled to Expedited Discovery .............................................................. 11 

V. A BOND SHOULD SECURE THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ........................................... 12 

VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 12 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2217
1 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

 Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley” or “Plaintiff”) is requesting temporary ex parte relief based 

on an action for design patent infringement against the defendants identified on Schedule “A” to 

the Amended Complaint (collectively, the “Defendants”). As alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint, Defendants are offering for sale and selling unauthorized and unlicensed products, 

namely the sunglasses, that infringe Oakley’s patented design (the “Infringing Products”) through 

at least the fully interactive, e-commerce stores1

 operating under the seller aliases identified in 

Schedule A to the Amended Complaint (collectively, the “Seller Aliases”). 

 Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce 

stores using one or more Seller Aliases through which Illinois residents can purchase Infringing 

Products. The e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases share unique identifiers 

establishing a logical relationship between them. Further, Defendants attempt to avoid and 

mitigate liability by operating under one or more Seller Aliases to conceal both their identities and 

the full scope and interworking of their operation. Oakley is forced to file this action to combat 

Defendants’ infringement of its patented design, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from 

purchasing Infringing Products over the Internet. Defendants’ ongoing unlawful activities should 

be restrained, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue ex parte a Temporary 

Restraining Order. 

1

 The e-commerce store urls are listed on Schedule A to the Amended Complaint under the Online 

Marketplaces. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:2218
2

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. Oakley Products and Patented Design 

 

Plaintiff Oakley is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

Washington, having its principal place of business at One Icon, Foothill Ranch, California 92610. 

See Declaration of Jason Groppe (the “Groppe Declaration”) at ¶ 3. Oakley is an indirect, whollyowned subsidiary of Luxottica Group S.p.A. Id. Oakley is an internationally recognized 

manufacturer, distributor and retailer of eyewear, apparel, footwear, outerwear, jackets, 

accessories and other merchandise (collectively, the “Oakley Products”) Id. at ¶ 4. 

Oakley Products are known for their distinctive patented designs. Id. at ¶ 7. These designs 

are broadly recognized by consumers. Id. Eyewear embodying these designs are associated with 

the quality and innovation that the public has come to expect from Oakley Products. Id. Oakley 

uses these designs in connection with its Oakley Products, including, but not limited to United 

States Patent No. D719,209 (the “Oakley Design”). Id. Oakley is the lawful assignee of all right, 

title, and interest in and to the Oakley Design. Id. at ¶ 8. 

B. Defendants’ Unlawful Activities 

 In recent years, Oakley has identified numerous fully interactive e-commerce stores, 

including those operating under the Seller Aliases, which were offering for sale and/or selling 

Infringing Products to consumers in this Judicial District and throughout the United States. Id. at 

¶ 9. Oakley’s well-pleaded allegations regarding registration patterns, similarities among the ecommerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases and the Infringing Products for sale thereon, 

and common tactics employed to evade enforcement efforts establish a logical relationship among 

the Defendants and that Defendants are interrelated. Id. at ¶¶ 11-14. If Defendants provide 

additional credible information regarding their identities, Oakley will take appropriate steps to 

amend the Amended Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:2219
3

III. ARGUMENT 

Defendants’ purposeful, intentional, and unlawful conduct is causing and will continue to 

cause irreparable harm to Oakley’s reputation. Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

provides that the Court may issue an ex parte TRO where immediate and irreparable injury, loss, 

or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard 

in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The entry of a TRO is appropriate because it would 

immediately stop the Defendants from benefiting from their wrongful use of the Oakley Design 

and preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held. 

 In the absence of a TRO without notice, the Defendants can and likely will register new ecommerce stores under new aliases, and move any assets to off-shore bank accounts outside the 

jurisdiction of this Court. See Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio at ¶¶ 3-5. Courts have recognized 

that civil actions against infringers present special challenges that justify proceeding on an ex parte

basis. See Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Jasso, 927 F. Supp. 1075, 1077 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 

(observing that “proceedings against those who deliberately traffic in infringing merchandise are 

often useless if notice is given to the infringers”). As such, Oakley respectfully requests that this 

Court issue the requested ex parte TRO. 

 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. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

 This Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since Defendants 

directly target business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through 

at least the fully interactive, e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases. Specifically, 

Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores 

that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases through which Illinois 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:2220
4

residents can purchase Infringing Products. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 2, 14, 20. See, e.g., 

Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. Lei Liu et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158225, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 

17, 2015) (personal jurisdiction proper over defendant offering to sell alleged infringing product 

to United States residents, including Illinois; no actual sale required); Ford Global Techs., LLC v. 

New World Int’l Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78384, at *9-13 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2016) (finding 

personal jurisdiction over defendant who sold products infringing design patents on its website 

and on an eBay storefront). Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is 

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

of Illinois. 

A. Standard for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 

 District Courts within this Circuit hold that the standard for granting a TRO and the 

standard for granting a preliminary injunction are identical. See, e.g. Charter Nat’l Bank & Trust 

v. Charter One Fin., Inc., No. 1:01-cv-00905, 2001 WL 527404, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2001) 

(citation omitted). A party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) that 

its case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; 

and (3) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. See Ty, Inc. v. The Jones 

Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). 

 If the Court is satisfied that these three conditions have been met, then it must consider the 

harm that the nonmoving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted, balancing such harm 

against the irreparable harm the moving party will suffer if relief is denied. Id. Finally, the Court 

must consider the potential effect on the public interest (non-parties) in denying or granting the 

injunction. Id. The Court then weighs all of these factors, “sitting as would a chancellor in equity,” 

when it decides whether to grant the injunction. Id. (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 

971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992)). This process involves engaging in what the Court has deemed 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:2221
5

“the sliding scale approach” – the more likely the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, the less the 

balance of harms need favor the plaintiff's position. Id. 

B. Oakley Will Likely Succeed on the Merits 

The United States Patent Act provides that “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers 

to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States 

any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 

271(a). In this case, Oakley is the lawful assignee of all right, title and interest in and to the Oakley 

Design. Groppe Declaration at ¶ 8. Oakley has submitted extensive documentation that 

Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale 

or use products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Oakley 

Design. Id. at ¶ 9. The documentation submitted by Oakley shows that an ordinary observer would 

be deceived into thinking that the Infringing Product was the same as the Oakley Design. 

Competitive Edge, Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1011 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citing Egyptian 

Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Finally, Oakley has not licensed 

or authorized Defendants to use the Oakley Design, and none of the Defendants are authorized 

retailers of genuine Oakley Products. Id. at ¶ 11. Accordingly, Oakley is likely to establish a 

prima facie case of design patent infringement.

C. There Is No Adequate Remedy at Law, and Oakley Will Suffer Irreparable 

Harm in the Absence of Preliminary Relief 

Irreparable harm resulting from design patent infringement is demonstrated when 

“remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for [that] 

injury.” Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

At this stage, Oakley only needs to show that irreparable harm is likely. See, e.g., Luminara 

Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd., 814 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Winter 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:2222
6

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, Oakley is likely to suffer two 

primary forms of irreparable harm: (1) loss of customers’ goodwill and (2) reputational harm. 

Groppe Declaration at ¶¶ 17-21. Each of these harms, independently, constitutes irreparable harm 

and offers a basis on which preliminary relief should issue. See, e.g., Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. 

Sequenom, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Under [the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit’s] precedent, price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, and loss of 

business opportunities are all valid grounds for finding irreparable harm.”) (internal quote and cites 

omitted). 

 Defendants’ infringement erodes and devalues Oakley’s rights in the Oakley Design, 

thereby risking injury to Oakley’s goodwill and reputation and interfering with Oakley’s ability to 

exploit the Oakley Design. Groppe Declaration at ¶¶ 17-21. See, e.g., Otter Prods. v. Anke Group 

Indus. Ltd., 2:13-cv-00029, 2013 WL 5910882, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2013) (explaining that absent 

the requested TRO, plaintiff were likely to suffer “irreparable injury...in the form of (a) loss of 

control over its intellectual property rights; (b) loss of consumer goodwill; and (c) interference 

with [plaintiff’s] ability to exploit the OTTERBOX trademarks and design patents.”); see also 

Nike, Inc. v. Fujian Bestwinn Industry Co., Ltd., 166 F.Supp.3d 1177, 1178-79 (D. Nev. 2016) 

(“Absent an ex parte temporary restraining order and seizure order, Bestwinn’s importation, sale, 

and/or offers to sell its Flyknit Design Infringements will result in immediate and irreparable injury 

to NIKE in the form of loss of control over its valuable intellectual property rights, loss of 

consumer goodwill, and interference with NIKE’s ability to exploit the Flyknit Design Patents.”). 

Defendants’ infringement of the Oakley Design by sale of the Infringing Products is likely 

to cause consumer confusion with genuine Oakley Products, resulting in harm to Oakley’s 

reputation and loss of customers’ goodwill. Groppe Declaration at ¶¶ 17-21. As established by 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:2223
7

the Federal Circuit: “[h]arm to reputation resulting from confusion between an inferior accused 

product and a patentee’s superior product is a type of harm that is often not fully compensable by 

money because the damages caused are speculative and difficult to measure.” Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. 

J. Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Tuf-Tite, Inc. v. Fed. Package 

Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-2060, 2014 WL 6613116, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2014) (quoting and 

relying on Reebok in finding irreparable harm). 

A causal nexus exists between Defendants’ infringement and each of the irreparable harms 

that Oakley is suffering. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Here, Defendants’ infringing use of the Oakley Design in the Infringing Product is a substantial, 

if not the exclusive, reason for consumer demand of the Infringing Products. See PCT Int’l Inc. v. 

Holland Elecs. LLC, No. CV-12-01797-PHX-JAT, 2015 WL 5210628, at *23-24 (D. Ariz. Sept. 

8, 2015), aff’d, No. 2016-1061, 2016 WL 4373941 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2016) (“The Federal Circuit 

has explained that when the products at issue are “relatively simple,” in the sense that they have a 

small number of features, the causal nexus requirement is easier to satisfy because the infringing 

feature has a large impact on demand for the products”). 

Finally, because Defendants are individuals and businesses who, upon information and 

belief, reside in the People’s Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions with no U.S. 

presence, any monetary judgement is likely uncollectable. See Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. 

Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reversing denial of permanent injunction where the 

likely availability of monetary damages was in question, citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond 

Innovation Tech. Co., No. 2:04-cv-0032, 2007 WL 869576, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2007) where 

“‘all three defendants are foreign corporations and that there is little assurance that [plaintiff] could 

collect monetary damages’”). Furthermore, other district courts have found that money damages 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:2224
8

were insufficient in similar cases involving foreign infringers. E.g., Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., 

Ltd., No. 2:12-cv-0053, 2012 WL 760692, at *5 (D. Nev. Mar. 7, 2012) (“[A] finding of irreparable 

harm was not clearly erroneous because it also found that since AE Tech is a foreign corporation, 

money damages would be insufficient.”); Otter Prods., 2013 WL 5910882, at *2 (“because Anke 

has no presence in the United States, it may be difficult or impossible for Otterbox to enforce a 

monetary judgement against Anke”); Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1263 (D. 

Kan. 2009) (granting preliminary injunction; “the prospect of collecting money damages from a 

foreign defendant with few to no assets in the United States tips in favor of a finding of irreparable 

harm”); Nike, 166 F.Supp.3d, at 1179 (“[B]ecause Bestwinn has no presence in the United States, 

it may be difficult or impossible for NIKE to recover a money judgement against Bestwinn”). 

For the reasons stated above, Oakley will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage if an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order is not issued in accordance with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). Groppe Declaration at ¶ 22. 

D. The Balancing of Harms Tips in Oakley’s Favor, and the Public Interest Is 

Served by Entry of the Injunction 

As noted above, if the Court is satisfied that Oakley has demonstrated (1) a likelihood of 

success on the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law, and (3) the threat of irreparable harm if 

preliminary relief is not granted, then it must next consider the harm that Defendants will suffer if 

preliminary relief is granted, balancing such harm against the irreparable harm Oakley will suffer 

if relief is denied. Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895. As willful infringers, Defendants are entitled to little 

equitable consideration. This is because any harm to Defendants that could possibly result from a 

temporary restraining order is self-inflicted. Defendants took a calculated risk when they engaged 

in design patent infringement. Under such circumstances, courts refuse to assign any “harm” to 

the defendant because it assumed the risk. See Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:2225
9

922, 931 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the preliminary record suggests that LTC’s losses were the result of 

its own calculated risk in selling a product with knowledge of Celsis’ patent”). 

 As Oakley has demonstrated, Defendants have been profiting from the sale of Infringing 

Products. Thus, the balance of equities tips decisively in Oakley’s favor. The public is currently 

under the false impression that Oakley has granted a license or permission to Defendants with 

respect to the Oakley Design. In this case, the injury to the public is significant, and the injunctive 

relief that Oakley seeks is specifically intended to remedy that injury by dispelling the public 

confusion created by Defendants’ actions. As such, equity requires that Defendants be ordered to 

cease their unlawful conduct. 

IV. THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT IS APPROPRIATE 

The Patent Act authorizes courts to issue injunctive relief “in accordance with the 

principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the 

court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

A. A Temporary Restraining Order Immediately Enjoining Defendants’

Unauthorized and Unlawful Use of the Oakley Design Is Appropriate 

Oakley requests a temporary injunction requiring the Defendants to immediately cease 

making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing any products not authorized by Oakley and 

that include any reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the Oakley 

Design. Such relief is necessary to stop the ongoing harm to Oakley’s control over its rights in the 

Oakley Design, its reputation, and associated goodwill, as well as harm to consumers, and to 

prevent the Defendants from continuing to benefit from their unauthorized use of the Oakley 

Design. The need for ex parte relief is magnified in today’s global economy where infringers can 

operate anonymously over the Internet. Oakley is currently unaware of both the true identities and 

locations of the Defendants, as well as other e-commerce stores used to distribute Infringing 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:2226
10

Products. Many courts have authorized immediate injunctive relief in similar cases involving the 

sale of infringing products. See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. Fujian Bestwinn Industry Co., Ltd., 166 

F.Supp.3d 1177, 1178-79 (D. Nev. 2016) 

B. Preventing the Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Is Appropriate 

Oakley requests an ex parte restraint of Defendants’ assets so that Oakley’s right to an 

equitable accounting of Defendants’ profits from sales of Infringing Products is not impaired.2

 

Issuing an ex parte restraint will ensure Defendants’ compliance. If such a restraint is not granted 

in this case, Defendants may disregard their responsibilities and fraudulently transfer financial 

assets to overseas accounts before a restraint is ordered. Specifically, upon information and belief, 

the Defendants in this case hold most of their assets in offshore accounts, making it easy to hide 

or dispose of assets, which will render an accounting by Oakley meaningless. 

Courts have the inherent authority to issue a prejudgment asset restraint when plaintiff’s 

complaint seeks relief in equity. Animale Grp. Inc. v. Sunny’s Perfume Inc., 256 F. App’x 707, 

709 (5th Cir. 2007). In addition, Oakley has shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits 

of its design patent infringement claim, so according to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Oakley is entitled to 

recover “the extent of [Defendants’] total profit.” Oakley’s Amended Complaint seeks, among 

other relief, that Defendants account for and pay to Oakley all profits realized by Defendants by 

reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts. Therefore, this Court has the inherent equitable authority to 

grant Oakley’s request for a prejudgment asset freeze to preserve relief sought by Oakley. 

The Northern District of Illinois in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose Wholesale Candies 

entered an asset restraining order in a trademark infringement case brought by a tobacco company 

against owners of a store selling counterfeit cigarettes. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose 

2 Oakley has concurrently filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal certain documents for this same 

reason.

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:2227
11

Wholesale Candies, 2005 WL 3115892, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2005). The Court recognized it 

was explicitly allowed to issue a restraint on assets for lawsuits seeking equitable relief. Id. (citing 

Grupo Mexicano, de Desarollo, S.A. v. Aliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 325 (1999)). Because 

the tobacco company sought a disgorgement of the storeowner’s profits, an equitable remedy, the 

Court found that it had the authority to freeze the storeowner’s assets. Id.

Oakley has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, an immediate and irreparable harm 

suffered as a result of Defendants’ activities, and that, unless Defendants’ assets are frozen, 

Defendants will likely hide or move their ill-gotten funds to offshore bank accounts. Accordingly, 

an asset restraint is proper. 

C. Oakley Is Entitled to Expedited Discovery 

The United States Supreme Court has held that “federal courts have the power to order, at 

their discretion, the discovery of facts necessary to ascertain their competency to entertain the 

merits.” Vance v. Rumsfeld, No. 1:06-cv-06964, 2007 WL 4557812, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21,

2007). (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380 (1978)). 

Courts have wide latitude in determining whether to grant a party's request for discovery. Id. 

(citation omitted). Further, courts have broad power over discovery and may permit discovery in 

order to aid in the identification of unknown defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). 

Oakley respectfully requests expedited discovery to discover bank and payment system 

accounts Defendants use for their sales operations. The expedited discovery requested in Oakley’s 

Proposed TRO is limited to include only what is essential to prevent further irreparable harm. 

Discovery of these financial accounts so that they can be frozen is necessary to ensure that these 

activities will be contained. See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships, et al., 

No. 15-cv-3249 (N.D. Ill. April 4, 2015) (unpublished). Oakley’s seizure and asset restraint may 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:2228
12

have little meaningful effect without the requested relief. Accordingly, Oakley respectfully 

requests that expedited discovery be granted. 

V. A BOND SHOULD SECURE THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

The posting of security upon issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction is vested in the 

Court’s sound discretion. Rathmann Grp. v. Tanenbaum, 889 F.2d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Because of the strong and unequivocal nature of Oakley’s evidence of design patent infringement, 

Oakley respectfully requests that this Court require Oakley to post a bond of no more than ten 

thousand U.S. dollars ($10,000.00). See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships, 

et al., No. 15-cv-3249 (N.D. Ill. April 4, 2015) (unpublished) ($10,000 bond).

VI. CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ operations are irreparably harming Oakley’s business, its well-known brand, 

and consumers. Without entry of the requested relief, Defendants’ infringement of the Oakley 

Design in connection with the making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of the Infringing 

Products will continue to irreparably harm Oakley. Therefore, entry of an ex parte order is 

necessary. In view of the foregoing, Oakley respectfully requests that this Court enter a Temporary 

Restraining Order in the form submitted herewith. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:2229
13

Dated this 18th day of June 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Justin R. Gaudio 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Jake M. Christensen 

Thomas J. Juettner 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 / 312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

jchristensen@gbc.law 

tjjuettner@gbc.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03542 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:2230