1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC Corporation I et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANT JIANGYOU-US’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’

OPPOSITION TO RULE 12b(2) MOTION TO DISMISSPURSUANT

I. Defendant JIANGYOU-US has never sold the infringing product to Illinois. Aside from relying 

on their erroneous interpretation of the Seventh Circuit decisions on “specific personal jurisdictions,” 

Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facia showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over JIANGYOUUS. II. An unrelated product purchased by Plaintiffs’ attorney for the “exclusive purpose of establishing 

jurisdiction” is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. III. Plaintiffs’ allegation that “JIANGYOUUS is related to or affiliated with defendant Gyroor-US” by Plaintiffs’ counsel Author Yuan is also 

unsupported by evidence. 

Arguments

I. Plaintiffs’ erroneous understanding of the Seventh Circuit decisions must be rejected. 

Plaintiffs allege that the Patents-in-Suit were infringed by the Accused Product - ASIN No.

B07PHFP8GB. [Dkt. No. 227-3, p. 3 of 4]. However, Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence that

JIANGYOU-US sold the Accused Product in Illinois.

Because Wang’s declaration that JIANGYOU-US never sold the Accused Product in Illinois is 

undisputed [Decl. of Wang, Dkt. No. 363-1, ¶16], Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facia showing of 

personal jurisdiction over JIANGYOU-US.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:11651
2

A. Maintenance of an interactive website does not establish sufficient minimum contacts to 

support the exercise of personal jurisdiction

The Seventh Circuit and this district court have repeatedly held that “maintenance of an 

interactive website, unaccompanied by evidence of any sales or other activity targeting Illinois, does 

not establish that [defendant] has sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois to support the exercise of 

personal jurisdiction.” Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified 

on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (citing Advanced 

Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) 

(“Having an interactive website ... should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every 

spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible.”)); see also MSM Design & Eng'g LLC 

v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule "A", No. 20-CV-00121, 2021 

WL 3187706, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2021) (“the mere possibility a product could be ordered online 

and shipped to Illinois is not, by itself, sufficient to form minimum contacts with this forum.”).

Here, JIANGYOU-US has never sold the Accused Product to Illinois. [Decl. of Wang, Dkt. 

No. 363-1, ¶16]. Its Amazon store is accessible from Illinois as well as everywhere else in the world. 

There is no evidence that JIANGYOU-US targets the state of Illinois. “It was not enough to establish 

personal jurisdiction when some “Illinoisan might someday find [the defendant's] website and decide 

to purchase a counterfeit product.” Rubik, 2021 WL 825668, at*4. 

Therefore, the mere possibility that JIANGYOU-US’ product could be ordered online and 

shipped to Illinois is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction purpose. 

B. Plaintiffs misunderstood the Curry case and Hemi case1

First, Plaintiffs claim the authorities cited by JIANGYOU-US are inapplicable because “most 

of the cited Seventh Circuit authorities [by JIANGYOU-US] does not relate to claims arising from 

acts over e-commerce platforms.” [Opp’n, Dkt. No. 412, p. 5].

1 Curry v. Rev. Labs., LLC, 949 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2020) & Illinois v. Hemi Group, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:11652
3

This interpretation is incorrect because “the Seventh Circuit has declined to formulate a 

special jurisdictional test for internet-based cases.” Rubik’s, 2021 WL 825668, at *2; see Curry v. Rev. 

Labs., LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 398 (7th Cir. 2020).

Second, both Curry and Hemi support JIANGYOU-US’ position. The Curry court held that a 

defendant should not be “haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website 

that is accessible in the forum state.” Curry, 949 F.3d at 400.

The Hemi court explicitly held that “Hemi is subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois, not 

merely because it operated several ‘interactive’ websites” but because it had sufficient minimum 

contacts with the state (sold 300 packs of cigarettes).” Hemi, 622 F.3d at 760.

Third, Plaintiffs failed to distinguish the facts in Curry and Hemi from the present case. In 

Curry, the defendant conceded that it had made sales to 767 customers through multiple interactive 

websites. Curry, 949 F.3d at 399. Similarly, in Hemi, the defendant sold 300 packs of cigarettes to an 

Illinois resident, which established minimum contact with the forum. Hemi, 622 F.3d at 755.

Here, JIANGYOU-US did not sell any Accused Product to Illinois, which is unchallenged by 

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish personal jurisdiction over JIANGYOU-US. 

II. Plaintiffs’ attempt to establish personal jurisdiction through buying an unrelated product 

does not establish specific personal jurisdiction

Plaintiffs’ attorney also tried to establish personal jurisdiction over JIANGYOU-US through

buying an unrelated product after JIANGYOU-US was added as a defendant. 

This is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. 

First, “a single incident conjured up by the plaintiffs’ attorney for the exclusive purpose of 

establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants” is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. 

Matlin v. Spin Master Corp., 921 F.3d 701, 706 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 

113909, ¶ 68, 987 N.E.2d 778, 793) (“specific jurisdiction should not be exercised based on a single 

sale in a forum, even when a manufacturer or producer “knows or reasonably should know that its 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:11653
4

products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products 

being sold in any of the fifty states.”)); see also J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 

888 (2011) (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment, joined by Alito, J., “none of our precedents finds 

that a single isolated sale, even if accompanied by the kind of sales effort indicated here, is sufficient. 

Rather, this Court's previous holdings suggest the contrary.”). [Opp’n, Dkt. No. 412, pp. 2-3].

Here, Plaintiff’s attorney made the purchase on August 15, 2021 [Dkt. No. 412-1, p. 35 of 40], 

only two days after JIANGYOU-US filed its Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on 

August 13, 2021. It is obvious that this is a single incident “conjured up by Plaintiffs’ counsel for the 

exclusive purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants.” Therefore, this “miniscule 

number” of transactions does not establish personal jurisdiction. See be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555, 

559 (7th Cir. 2011). 

Second, “specific jurisdiction must rest on the litigation-specific conduct of the defendant in 

the proposed forum state.” Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 

F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2014), as corrected (May 12, 2014)

After being added as a defendant, JIANGYOU-US has ceased selling the Accused Product -

ASIN No. B07PHFP8GB. The purchase made by Plaintiffs’ attorney is of an Unrelated Product with 

ASIN No. B07C3C861F [Dkt. No. 412-1, p. 27 of 40]. The Unrelated Product B07C3C861F is not a 

new product. It has been on the market since April 10, 2018. [Dkt. No. 420-1, p.4].

The infringement allegation against JIANGYOU-US is based on the Accused Product -

B07PHFP8GB. [Dkt. No. 227-3, p. 3 of 4]. The purchase of the Unrelated Product B07C3C861F is

beyond the scope of the “litigation-specific conduct” for the purpose of specific personal jurisdiction 

analysis because the Unrelated Product B07C3C861F is not mentioned in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, 

amended Complaints, Defendant Schedule A, or Amended Schedule A [Dkt. No. 227-3]. See Kraft 

Chem. Co. v. Salicylates & Chemicals Priv. Ltd., 149 F. Supp. 3d 897, 903 (N.D. Ill. 2015).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:11654
5

JIANGYOU-US reserves its Rule 12(b) defenses should Plaintiffs choose to raise any claims 

against the Unrelated Product B07C3C861F or choose to add it in Schedule A. 

Consequently, the purchase of this unrelated product should not affect the specific personal 

jurisdiction analysis.

Therefore, this single purchase of an unrelated product, conjured up by the plaintiffs’ attorney,

does not establish specific personal jurisdiction.

III.Plaintiffs’ allegation that JIANGYOU-US is connected with Gyroor-US must be rejected

Plaintiffs alleges that JIANGYOU-US is connected with Gyroor-US and therefore personal 

jurisdiction over JIANGYOU-US exists. [Opp’n, Dkt. No. 412, pp.2 & 7]. Without further support, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel Author Yuan made empty allegation that “Jiangyou-US store is related to or affiliated

with Gyroor-US” is unsupported by any evidence. [Dkt. No. 227-1, ¶6]. 

Here, JIANGYOU-US and Gyroor-US are two different entities formed in different cities. 

Stated on record, JIANGYOU-US is owned by Shenzhen Jiangyou jinchukou youxiangongsi 

(Shenzhen Jiangyou Imporitng/Exporting Co. Ltd) [Dkt. No. 363-1], and Gyroor-US is owned by 

Dongguan Saibotan Nengyuan Keji Co. Ltd. (“Dongguan Saibotan Energy Tech Co. Ltd.).

Furthermore, Xie declares that “Gyroor-US is not affiliated, in active concert of participation with

the sellers identified by Plaintiffs.” [Decl. of Xie, Dkt. No. ¶7]. 

Author Yuan’s allegation was unsupported by any evidence. The mere fact that JIANGYOU-US

and Gyroor-US are represented by the same attorneys does not prove any “close relationship” alleged by 

Plaintiffs. [Opp’n, Dkt. No. 412, p. 8].

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ empty allegation must be rejected. 

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant JIANGYOU-US respectfully requests that this 

Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint against it.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:11655
6

Date: 09/17/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq.

GLACIER LAW PLLC

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100

Chicago, IL 60601

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:11656
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this September 17, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

file with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, 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: 09/17/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq.

GLACIER LAW PLLC

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100

Chicago, IL 60601

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 425 Filed: 09/17/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:11657