Exhibit 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:8393
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC Corporation I, et al., )

) Docket No. 20 C 4806

Plaintiffs, )

) Chicago, Illinois

vs. ) July 23, 2021

) 9:04 a.m. THE PARTNERSHIPS AND

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A," et al.,

)

)

)

)

) Defendants. )

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS - Status

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. DURKIN

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: MR. NEIL G. NANDI

MR. ADAM G. KELLY

MR. ARTHUR YUAN

Loeb & Loeb LLP

321 North Clark Street, Suite 2300, Chicago, Illinois 60654

For the Gyroor-US MR. ROBIN H. CHENG

Defendants: Glacier Law PLLC

200 Park Avenue, Suite 1703, New York, New York 10166

ELIA E. CARRIÓN

Official Court Reporter United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1432, Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 408-7782

Elia_Carrion@ilnd.uscourts.gov

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 1 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:8394
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

(Proceedings had telephonically:)

THE CLERK: The next case is 20 CV 4806,

ABC Corporation versus The Partnerships and Unincorporated

Associations on Schedule "A."

Could I please have the attorneys speaking on behalf

of the plaintiff state their name.

MR. NANDI: Yes. This is Neil Nandi from the

law firm Loeb & Loeb speaking on behalf of the plaintiff. I'm

joined by my colleagues Adam Kelly and Arthur Yuan.

THE CLERK: All right. And on behalf of the

defendants, could I please have attorneys state their names

one at a time.

MR. CHENG: Good morning. He Cheng from Glacier Law

representing multiple defendants in this case.

THE COURT: All right. I asked for the status today

because using nonlegal terms, what the heck is going on? I've

never seen so much motion practice in a case, other than,

you know, AT&T versus MCI.

What is going on? I'll ask first the plaintiffs.

I'm shocked at the number of motions filed in -- in a design

patent case at this stage of the proceedings and appeals taken

and contempt motions, rule to show cause motions. I'm just

stunned.

And I wanted first to know what's going on and what

the amount of money is at issue in this case, if determinable,

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 2 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:8395
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

and why you're not trying to settle it.

If not possible, I'm going to go through the status

report one by one and either resolve issues or set briefing

schedules.

Start first with the plaintiff, and please state your

name, anyone, when they say anything. Go ahead.

MR. NANDI: Yes, Your Honor, this is Neil Nandi.

We are -- I believe the businesspersons from the end

client on both sides might have had some type of settlement

discussions. We believe there is over a million dollars at

stake in the litigation, though, we have received very little

in terms of discovery responses, so we really can't commit to

an amount at issue at this point.

But we absolutely agree, and -- and agree with the

Court's sentiments that the motion practice has been

substantial and are open to any type of remedies that could --

that could resolve that issue. Particularly since we now have

several motions for summary judgment filed even before

briefing schedule -- or even before a discovery order has been

entered.

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, you say that you believe

some of the principals have talked. That should be something

you should know. Have they talked or have they not? At least

one side's your client.

MR. NANDI: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. Our side -- our

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 3 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:8396
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

client has talked to at least some of the defendants. Given

the nature of the defendants, the relationships between them,

I can't say definitively which defendants exactly, and as to

other defendants in this case, we have been settling and have

settled as to other defendants that have appeared in this

litigation. Right now it is the Gyroor defendants that are

the only ones outstanding, and our client had started engaging

in settlement discussions with some of them.

THE COURT: All right. So a principal from the

plaintiff has -- is speaking to a principal from the Gyroor?

MR. NANDI: Defendants.

THE COURT: Pardon me?

MR. NANDI: Sorry, Your Honor; I did not mean to

interrupt you.

Our principal from the plaintiff has spoken to a

principal from a representative of the Tomoloo entities.

THE COURT: Of who?

MR. NANDI: The Tomoloo entities, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. How about Gyroor? I'm

confused on the relationship. But is Gyroor and Tomoloo the

same company?

MR. NANDI: Our understanding is no, that they are

not from the same company. Again, I have to commit to that

position, but no, as to the extent they are independent, there

have been no discussions with the Gyroor principals.

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 4 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:8397
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

THE COURT: All right. Let's hear from defense

counsel. Do you represent Gyroor?

MR. CHENG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you represent Tomoloo?

MR. CHENG: Not anymore. We believe Tomoloo has

reached an agreement with the principal of -- our last

conversation with Tomoloo defendants yesterday is that an

agreement has been reached already. So I think the settlement

is -- has been reached.

THE COURT: All right. And is -- who's your client?

Who -- who is Gyroor? Are they -- hang on, let me finish --

give me a name, spell it please, and then tell me where he or

she or they are located.

MR. CHENG: So, Your Honor, we currently representing

eight defendants, and I will give you name of each defendants.

So the first one is Gyroor, spelled as G-Y-R-O-O-R, dash,

U.S.; and this defendant is located in Dongguan China,

Guangdong Province, China.

THE COURT: All right. And what's the name of the

person you actually deal with at that company?

MR. CHENG: I have to look on my list, 'cause every

defendants has a different representative. I can submit to

you a list after the hearing, or if you want me to find the

name of the person, I have to look at my list.

THE COURT: No, that's unnecessary. Here's where I'm

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 5 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:8398
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

going on this: If there is a person behind this company, I

want to know if that person --

MR. CHENG: Of course.

THE COURT: -- behind this company, which, of course,

there is, is willing to talk to the person who is the

businessperson at the plaintiffs.

The attorneys' fees on this case, unless you're

working pro bono, probably are going to outstrip any potential

recovery by either side very shortly.

And --

MR. CHENG: Well --

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. CHENG: Your Honor, we think there are over

$2 million dollars being restrained put together by the

clients we are currently representing so -- and they're not

infringements. It's very clear. They have their own patent.

They have their design according to their own patent. And

defendants have made it clear and plaintiff has not giving any

merit discussion to the fact that defendants' products are

actually manufactured according to their own patent, and

there's no -- there's no infringements in this case.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm not going to force

a settlement discussion. I just want to know if it's

possible. 99 percent of all these cases settle. This is that

1 percent, and it's exploded into numerous motions, which took

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 6 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:8399
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

close to four pages -- no, it's six pages to explain the

various pending motions. Those that are fully briefed, those

that need briefing schedules, those that are on appeal, the

interlocutory appeals, the transfer of an appeal from the

Seventh Circuit to the Fed Circuit.

And I just want to know, as a simple matter of

judicial economy, whether or not there is any person on the

business side of these two cases, two parties, that believes

that attempting to reach a financial settlement is more

expeditious and less costly than engaging in the kind of

litigation that's been going on here.

Is there someone -- is there someone on your end, on

the defense side, who would be willing to have such a

discussion? If not, that's fine.

MR. CHENG: Of course.

THE COURT: That's why we have courts. Is there such

a person?

MR. CHENG: There are people from defendants' side

that we can arrange meetings with plaintiff's side. I think

we all have each other's contact information, and I think

discussions between the two parties are possible.

THE COURT: All right. Now, on the plaintiff's side,

Mr. Nandi, is there such a person on your side who would be

willing to have such a discussion? I can't force

representative parties to talk to each other, that's why --

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 7 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8400
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

and it may be that they're not willing to engage in a direct

businessperson-to-businessperson discussion. And that's fine.

But is there a -- is there an interest in the

businesspeople, or person, on the plaintiff's side having such

a discussion with the defendants?

MR. NANDI: Yes, Your Honor. There is -- there is a

specific named individual. Her -- her westernized name is

Anna, and she has been engaging. She's been the one that's

been leading the discussions with other defendants that have

settled in this case.

THE COURT: And if I'm -- and am I correct that there

have been no such discussions with the Gyroor defendants?

MR. NANDI: That is correct, Your Honor. One -- one

hesitation on our client's part has been, as we noted in one

of our motions, it seems that the Gyroor defendants have been

engaged in substantial continuing violations of the PI, which

has created obstacles to settlement.

THE COURT: Of course. And if there's actually a

willful violation of the preliminary injunction, that's

contempt. That's something punished by contempt.

But I'm not there yet. I haven't decided that. You

filed a motion. I don't have briefs on the other side. What

I'd like to do is put a standstill on everything on this case

for either 7 or 14 days to allow the principals of the

plaintiff and defendants to talk.

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 8 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:8401
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

If they think that a settlement is not going to

happen, we're going to come back in 7 or 14 days, whatever you

advise me is appropriate time, and we're going to set the

various briefing schedules and give you rulings to the extent

that things are fully briefed on this case.

I'm not going to waste -- waste is the wrong word.

I'm not going to take a minute of time to resolve these

motions until I know you've exercised good faith efforts to

try and exhaust possibilities of settlement.

It's just too many motions for this type of

litigation, if there is -- if there is a way to settle. If

there's not, my job is to resolve these motions, and I will do

it as expeditiously as I can. But I want to make sure you've

exhausted these opportunities given the fact that the playbook

in most of these cases, as I said 99 percent of them, is

resolution by settlement. Or defaults. There won't be a

default here. Although some parties haven't answered yet, but

I'll give -- what do you want 7 or 14 days, Mr. Nandi?

MR. NANDI: We would prefer 14 days, 14 days for the

settlement discussions.

THE COURT: That's fine. How about on the defense

side?

MR. CHENG: Yes, Your Honor. 14 days works for us.

We just want to bring up the issue that the same case was

filed -- the same claim was filed in another case. So we

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:8402 Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 9 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

actually have a pending motion being 21 -- 20 CV 5905, and one

of the sections of issue of noninfringement is currently being

decided in the other case, so as that is decided, I think that

will also help -- help this Court in deciding some of the

pending motions, that's the same issue being litigated in both

cases.

THE COURT: Who has that case? What judge?

MR. CHENG: I think Judge Seeger.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm not sure what

Judge Seeger's rulings do to implicate anything here, and I'm

not going to stop anything Judge Seeger does. But I'm

confident if you tell him that the parties are engaged in

settlement discussions and ask him to hold off on any ruling,

if, in fact, the same parties are going to be talking before

Judge Seeger -- the same parties are involved before

Judge Seeger, he's a very practical judge, and my guess is he

will stop doing anything on that case if he believes there are

settlement discussions going on that may encompass his case,

too. You can report that to him, if you want, that you're

having some settlement discussions or not.

These aren't going to linger. We're going to get a

status in 14 days, and you're going to report back either

progress has been made or it hasn't. And believe me,

defendants should be careful if, in fact, there is willful

violations of the current injunction going on, this is not

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 10 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:8403
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

free license in those 14 days to continue those violations, if

they're occurring. I'm not concluding that they are, but if

they are, and later if there's no settlement, and I find that

violations have occurred during this standstill period, this

is not a free pass to go ahead and violate those.

Any sanction for violation of the injunction will be

imposed for violations that have occurred up to now and

violations that occur over the next 14 days and violations

that occur as long as that order is in place. So please make

sure your clients are aware of that.

Emily, a date in 14 days.

THE CLERK: August 6 at 8:45.

THE COURT: All right. Does that date work?

MR. CHENG: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Does that date work for the plaintiff?

MR. NANDI: That does, Your Honor. Would the Court

like a joint status report filed a day or two before that?

THE COURT: I would.

And for defendants?

MR. CHENG: The day works for defendants.

Your Honor, I just want to make sure just 'cause the

preliminary injunction is currently not clear, so our

understanding is only individuals or defendants who were named

in the preliminary injunction are covered by the preliminary

injunction. Anyone who is alleged in active concert and

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 11 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:8404
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

[unintelligible] with defendants are not directly covered by

that preliminary injunction, unless a hearing is granted to

those individuals.

THE COURT: The injunction is what it is. It's

written plainly. If you think there's ambiguities in it,

contact plaintiffs and tell them where you think there's an

ambiguity.

But the whole point of allowing this 14-day period to

take place to attempt to resolve the case is to not have

judicial resources expended by nitpicking through an order to

see if a company that's in concert with a named defendant is

also subject to that injunction.

Talk to the plaintiffs. These -- anyone that is

going to violate this injunction does so whether they're named

in the injunction, whether they're in concert with the

defendants, or whether they think they're not covered by it,

they do it at their own risk. But maybe they're not going to

be liable for something they do if they're not covered. But

perhaps they will.

So they ought to -- if they engage in willful

violation of an injunction, they do so at great risk and they

ought to consult with counsel, you, to see whether or not

they're engaging in conduct that might end up being

contemptible.

All right. Go ahead.

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 12 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:8405
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

MR. CHENG: Those defendants ask that be

accomplishing restraint.

THE COURT: I didn't understand you, sir. Sorry.

MR. CHENG: So those -- some of those defendants or

some of the third parties and later added as defendants, do

you ask that they're accomplishing restraint without a hearing

to decide whether or not they're actually in concert with the

defendants and in active [unintelligible] with defendants. So

that's one thing.

And the second one is, for defendants, I think that

noninfringement is clear if Your Honor, you know, would first

decide the defendants' motion for summary judgment. There's

no infringement in this case --

THE COURT: Let me stop you right there, sir.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm going to stop you right

there.

The whole point of giving this 14-day standstill is

to allow the parties to attempt to settle the case. I'm not

going to litigate the summary judgment motion. I'm not going

to litigate the scope of the injunction order. These are

parties that have counsel, or at least talking to you. Anyone

that wants to engage in conduct that brushes against the

fringes of an existing order does so at great risk.

And these are not unsophisticated parties because

they have counsel, you. So act accordingly. The status

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 13 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:8406
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

report I received that was submitted by the plaintiff -- was

that a joint status report or just simply one by the

plaintiff?

MR. NANDI: Just by the plaintiffs, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, you can submit it

again. I would prefer to have defendants' input in it, too,

when it's submitted, but it doesn't have to. So work with

defense counsel to submit a joint report. If you can't get

agreement or you can't get counsel's cooperation on it, submit

your own. But we will go through each one of these line items

in 14 days, unless there's a report back that the parties have

either settled or are engaging in fruitful settlement

discussions such that a further expenditure of court -- of

attorneys' fees and court time is best held off until further

settlement discussions take place.

But those are the -- that's how we're going to do it.

So you've got 14 days. Don't violate any orders that are

existing. If you're not sure if the order applies to you,

don't do it. Be careful is my only advice to you. And if

you -- if defense counsel wants to talk to plaintiff's counsel

about the scope of such an order during this 14 days, feel

free to do so.

Anything else from plaintiff?

MR. NANDI: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else from defendant?

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 14 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:8407
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

MR. CHENG: Only one thing, Your Honor. Can we file

another motion to vacate preliminary injunction for the

Gyroor-U.S. defendants?

THE COURT: No. Quite frankly, no. We're done. I

put a standstill on everything other than enforcement of

orders that are in place. I don't understand why you need to

file another motion. It's completely inconsistent with what

I've told you. And what you've told me that you have a

principal that is willing to talk to a principal from the

plaintiff.

If you think there are -- I suppose if you think

there's some severe financial disadvantages accruing to your

client because of the existence of this order, I suppose you

can file a motion, but it's not going to be briefed before the

14 days is up, so I don't know -- and -- and I don't know,

you're going to have to explain to me somehow on what the

severe financial disadvantages your client is suffering. He's

going out of business because of this injunction, you ought to

talk to plaintiff. If he's -- and short of going out of

business, other than just losing money, which is something he

can get back if it turns out the injunction was entered

improperly based on something the plaintiff told me that was

not correct, that's money you can get back.

But short of something catastrophic, such as the

business failing and no longer being able to operate, you

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 15 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:8408
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

can't file such a motion. If you have a true emergency, such

as I've just described, go ahead and file your motion. I'm

strongly discouraging it, but I'm not preventing it.

Anything else from defendant?

MR. CHENG: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, all.

(Proceedings concluded at 9:25 a.m.)

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from

the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/ Elia E. Carrión 29th day of July, 2021 ______ Elia E. Carrión Date

Official Court Reporter

Case 1-20-cv-04806 Document 348 Filed in ILND on 07/29/2021 Page 16 of 16 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 372-2 Filed: 08/20/21 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:8409