You are here

Opinions

Below is a list of opinions specially selected for public release by judges in the district.  For a detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Note:  This database does not contain all decisions issued by all judges and is not intended to replace PACER or other more comprehensive case law sites.  The PACER system provides a report of written opinions as defined by the Judicial Conference.  Access to both the report and the opinions is free.  In order to access court records via PACER you must have a PACER account.  For PACER access and online registration, please click here.

24-CV-1281 Champion Power Equipment Inc v. Generac Power Systems Inc

Decision and Order

The court denied a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). The court’s opinion on the motion to dismiss addressed the pleading standard applicable to claims of patent infringement. In particular, the court determined that when the patent claims relate to simple mechanical systems and nothing in the complaint indicates that all claim elements would not be found in the accused product, the plaintiff does not have to explain in the complaint exactly how the accused product might infringe. To plead a plausible claim, it is enough for the complaint to allege that all claim elements are found in the accused product, either literally or equivalently.  In denying the motion for a more definite statement, the court determined that the defendant was not entitled to receive the plaintiff’s theories of claim construction and infringement before filing an answer. Those details would come in the ordinary course of discovery, and the defendant did not show that the lack of such details hindered its ability to file an answer.

Judge:
Date:
Wednesday, January 22, 2025

23-CV-1327 Joshua L. Brown v. City of Racine et al

Decision and Order

This is an excessive force case involving allegations of a four-hour handcuffing that caused the plaintiff shoulder pain. The court found that the police officers may have violated the Fourth Amendment but that their actions did not violate any clearly established law and thus they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Date:
Wednesday, January 15, 2025

22-CV-610 Uriel Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan et al v. Advocate Aurora Health Inc et al 

24-CV-157 Shaw et al v Advocate Aurora Health Inc et al

Decision and Order

In an antitrust case involving allegations of vertical restraints in the market for health care services, the court decided seven motions to compel discovery. The court’s order addresses various issues concerning discovery in a large antitrust case, including matters relating to electronic discovery.

Judge:
Date:
Friday, January 10, 2025

Pages