UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

INVENTUS POWER, INC., and 

ICC ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) LTD., 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

SHENZHEN ACE BATTERY CO., LTD., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-03375 

Judge: Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Jeffrey Cummings 

DEFENDANT ACE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY 

IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTION 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 244 Filed: 05/31/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:6195
2

Defendant Shenzhen ACE Battery Co., Ltd., hereby moves the Court for leave to file a surreply in further opposition to Inventus Power, Inc. (“Inventus”) and ICC Electronics Ltd.’s (“ICC”) 

(together “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Sanction. 

ACE seeks leave to file its sur-reply, which is filed herewith, to present pertinent facts and 

evidence in response to new facts and arguments asserted in Plaintiffs’ reply [Dkt. No. 237]. 

ARGUMENT 

A. Good Cause Exists for Granting Leave to File the Surreply 

“The decision whether to grant a motion for leave to file a surreply is within the Court’s 

discretion.” Univ. Healthsystem Consortium v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 3d 917, 922 

(N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. L.A. Rams, 188 F.3d 427, 439 (7th Cir. 1999). “In 

some instances, allowing the filing of a surreply ‘vouchsafes the aggrieved party’s right to be heard 

and provides the court with the information necessary to make an informed decision.’” Id. (quoting In 

re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 320, 329 (N.D. Ill. 2005)). 

In the present case, First, Plaintiffs asserted new facts and arguments that were never raised in 

their motion for sanction, including allegations of ACE’s lack of production of “PCBA documents” 

and Communication with Hewlett-Packard, based on ACE’s production Bates No. ACE-P2-JY-EML000495 and Bates No. ACE-P-YF-EML-017485. The alleged lack production is unfounded. 

Second, while refusing ACE’s discovery request regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged misappropriation, 

because “Inventus disagrees that this Request falls within the scope of jurisdictional discovery...” 

[Dkt. 209-3, Requests 3, 4, pp. 10-14], Plaintiffs now claim their alleged misappropriation and 

allegedly misappropriated documents are “clearly relevant to jurisdiction.” [Dkt. 237, pp. 7-8]. 

This Court has decided that whether the alleged misappropriation actually occurred is on the 

merit on this case, not jurisdictional. While ACE had no opportunity to discover relevant evidence 

pertaining to Plaintiffs’ alleged misappropriation claims, Plaintiffs’ request for sanction on the merit of 

this case is inappropriate and should be denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 244 Filed: 05/31/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:6196
3

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, ACE respectfully requests that this Honorable Court allow the 

surreply filed herewith with the exhibits. 

Date: 05/31/2022 

Respectfully Submitted: 

/s/ He Cheng 

He Cheng 

Robin.Cheng@glacier.law 

Tao Liu 

Tao.Liu@glacier.law 

Tianyu Ju 

Iris.ju@glacier.law 

200 Park Ave. Ste 1703 

New York, NY 10166 

Tel: +1 (332) 208-8882 

Cell: +1 (332) 208-1523 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 244 Filed: 05/31/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:6197
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this May 31, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, along with the attached Exhibits, and service was 

perfected on all counsel of record and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 05/31/2022 /s/ He Cheng 

He Cheng 

Case: 1:20-cv-03375 Document #: 244 Filed: 05/31/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:6198