Frenchporte Ip LLC v. C.h.i. Overhead Doors, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRENCHPORTE IP LLC,
Plaintiff
v.
C.H.I. OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
v.
MOARBES, LLP,
Claimant-Appellant
______________________
2025-1186
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois in No. 2:21-cv-02014-CSB-EIL,
Judge Colin Stirling Bruce.
______________________
Decided: July 23, 2026
______________________
J EREMY ROUX , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, ar-
gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by G IANNI
CUTRI.
Case: 25-1186 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

FRENCHPORTE IP LLC v. C. H .I . OVERHEAD DOORS, INC. 2
G EOFFREY MASON , Moarbes LLP, Washington, DC, ar-
gued for claimant-appellant.
______________________
Before P ROST , REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
Moarbes, LLP (“Moarbes”), which represented
FrenchPorte IP LLC (“FrenchPorte”) in the underlying
case, appeals the judgment of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois ordering Moarbes to pay fifty
percent of a $46,438.60 sanctions award for repeated fail-
ures to comply with court orders. FrenchPorte IP, LLC v.
C.H.I. Overhead Doors, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-2014, 2024 WL
1307790 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2024) (“Sanctions Order”).
Before this court, Moarbes does not contend that the
imposition of sanctions in the amount of $46,438.60 was
improper. See, e.g., Oral Arg. at 1:05–16 (conceding that
sanctions were appropriate).1 Rather, Moarbes maintains
only that it should not share any responsibility for those
sanctions with FrenchPorte. Id.; see also id. at 3:38–53.
Moarbes’s sole argument in support is that the district
court could find it responsible for the sanctioned conduct
only by impermissibly relying on an ex parte letter submit-
ted by FrenchPorte’s CEO, Ken Maher. See, e.g., Appel-
lant’s Br. 21–22.
Moarbes’s position is untenable. The district court ex-
pressly stated that it had “not considered [Mr.] Maher’s let-
ter,” yet it nevertheless concluded “that even
apportionment of the responsibility [between Moarbes and
FrenchPorte] for the sanctions award [was], indeed, appro-
priate.” Sanctions Order, 2024 WL 1307790, at *3. The
district court’s analysis shows that it relied upon Moarbes’s
1 No. 25-1186, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-
arguments/25-1186_07062026.mp3.
Case: 25-1186 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

FRENCHPORTE IP LLC v. C. H .I . OVERHEAD DOORS, INC. 3
own filings (not the letter), which laid out all the relevant
facts—namely, that (1) Moarbes had received some, though
perhaps not all, of the funding needed to comply with the
court’s orders; and (2) Moarbes repeatedly failed to comply
with said orders. Id. at *2–3. Moarbes concedes that it
loses its appeal if we do not find that the district court re-
lied upon the ex parte letter in determining the allocation
of sanctions. Oral Arg. at 4:29–50 (acknowledging this
point), 5:30–6:02 (same). Having reviewed the sanctions
order, we see no basis to conclude that the district court
relied upon Mr. Maher’s letter. We further find no abuse
of discretion in the district court’s well-reasoned determi-
nation that Moarbes should share evenly in the responsi-
bility for its, and FrenchPorte’s, delinquent conduct.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1186 Document: 80 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 3 of 3 --