IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC CORPORATION I,

ABC CORPORATION II,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-4806

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RETURN OF BOND

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Reply in support of their motion for return of bond (Dkt. 

653, “Motion”).1 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants cannot have it both ways—they cannot delay seeking relief and allege that 

Plaintiff’s Motion is “premature,” yet continue to conclude that they have been wrongfully 

restrained and enjoined by the temporary restraining order and Prior PIs entered by this Court. (See 

Dkt. 655, “Opp’n” at 2–5.) There is simply no reason for Plaintiffs’ funds to remain in escrow with 

the Court until Defendants decide to seek relief at their own convenience, especially where 

Defendants cannot demonstrate an actual and quantifiable injury given, among other reasons, their 

undisputed violations of the Prior PIs (see Dkt. 444). 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all defined terms in this reply have the same meaning as set forth in 

Plaintiffs’ opening memorandum (Dkt. 654, the “Memorandum” or “Mem.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 656 Filed: 04/25/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:16686
2

ARGUMENT

Contrary to Defendants’ assertions (see Opp’n at 4–5), the fact that the Prior PIs were 

overturned by the Federal Circuit Decisions does not render the Prior PIs “wrongful.” Nor does it 

automatically entitle Defendants to damages. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Governor of 

New Jersey, 939 F.3d 597, 607 (3d Cir. 2019) (collecting cases). The burden is squarely on 

Defendants to prove damages suffered as a result of the entry of the Prior PIs. See Triumph v. 

Ward, No. 11 C 7927, 2011 WL 6754044, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2011). Defendants offer nothing 

more than conclusory assertions and decline—again—to offer any legally sufficient showing of 

damages. (See Dkt. 651.) Defendants’ talismanic invocation of statements such as “it is clear that 

[they] were wrongfully enjoined” (Opp’n at 4) and that “there can be no question that [they were] 

wrongfully restrained” (Opp’n at 5) simply fail to establish damages.

In fact, Defendants have steadfastly deferred seeking relief (Dkt. 651) and attempt to use 

this self-imposed delay to frame Plaintiffs’ Motion as “premature”. (See Opp’n at 2–3; see also 

Mot. at 3–4.) But this cannot divert attention from Defendants’ failure to put forward any evidence 

that they were “wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” (See Opp’n at 2–3; see also Mot. at 3–4). 

Defendants simply fail to address that this Court has discretion to release Rule 65(c) bonds where, 

as here, “there is a good reason for not requiring the plaintiff to pay.” Coyne-Delany Co. v. Cap. 

Dev. Bd. of State of Ill., 717 F.2d 385, 391–92 (7th Cir. 1983). Speculative and self-serving 

assertions of lost profits supposedly attributable to the Prior PIs does not entitle Defendants to 

recover on the bonds (see Opp’n at 5–6 (citing Dkt. 576)). Triumph, 2011 WL 6754044, at *5

(declining to award damages where claim based solely on unsupported assertions).

Most telling, however, is Defendants’ continued silence as to their disregard and violation 

of the Prior PIs. (See Mot. at 4–5.) With multiple opportunities to do so (including here), 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 656 Filed: 04/25/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:16687
3

Defendants have not disputed that they were affiliated with other Amazon storefronts identified 

by Plaintiffs as selling infringing hoverboards and that they transferred assets from their Amazon 

accounts—conduct explicitly enjoined by the Prior PIs. (See, e.g., Dkt. 370, 444.) The fact that 

Defendants continued to sell infringing hoverboards under the guise of affiliated Amazon 

storefronts undermines any potential claim of a legally cognizable harm compensable by monies 

set aside by the bonds. See Coyne-Delany Co., 717 F.2d 385 at 391–92.

Accordingly, now that the Prior PIs are no longer in place, and because Defendants cannot 

demonstrate an actual and quantifiable injury as a result of the Prior PIs, the bonds have served 

their purpose and the Court should exercise its discretion and order the return of the escrowed 

funds to Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and as outlined in Plaintiffs’ opening Memorandum, Plaintiffs 

respectfully request this Court to grant their Motion for Return of Bond. 

Dated: April 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

PALMERSHEIM & MATHEW LLP TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Robert J. Palmersheim Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Anand C. Mathew Mark Berkowitz

Timothy G. Parilla Chandler E. Sturm (admitted pro hac vice)

401 N. Franklin Street, Suite 4S 1350 Broadway

Chicago, IL 60654 New York, NY 10018

Tel.: (312) 319-1791 Tel.: (212) 216-8000

E-mail: acm@thepmlawfirm.com Fax: (212) 216-8001

E-mail: rjp@thepmlawfirm.com E-mail: rlomuscio@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: tgp@thepmlawfirm.com E-mail: mberkowitz@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: csturm@tarterkrinsky.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 656 Filed: 04/25/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:16688
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 25, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 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.

Dated: April 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

PALMERSHEIM & MATHEW LLP TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Robert J. Palmersheim Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Anand C. Mathew Mark Berkowitz

Timothy G. Parilla Chandler E. Sturm (admitted pro hac vice)

401 N. Franklin Street, Suite 4S 1350 Broadway

Chicago, IL 60654 New York, NY 10018

Tel.: (312) 319-1791 Tel.: (212) 216-8000

E-mail: acm@thepmlawfirm.com Fax: (212) 216-8001

E-mail: rjp@thepmlawfirm.com E-mail: rlomuscio@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: tgp@thepmlawfirm.com E-mail: mberkowitz@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: csturm@tarterkrinsky.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 656 Filed: 04/25/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:16689