Abs Global, Inc. v. INGURAN, LLC, doing business as SEXING TECHNOLOGIES, Appeal from the United States…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 29, 2019 *
Decided June 4, 2019
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge
No. 18‐3317
ABS GLOBAL, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant ‐
Appellee,
and
GENUS PLC
Counterclaim Defendant ‐ Appellee
v.
INGURAN, LLC, doing business as
SEXING TECHNOLOGIES,
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 3:14‐cv‐00503‐wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. The appeal is thus submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 18‐3317 Page 2
Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant
and
XY, LLC,
Intervening
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff –
Appellant.
O R D E R
This appeal concerns the award of attorneys’ fees to ABS Global, Inc., and Genus
for their partially successful federal antitrust claim against Inguran, LLC (known as
Sexing Technologies). The antitrust claim did not stand alone, however; the case also
involved counterclaims brought by Sexing Technologies against ABS and Genus for
patent infringement and breach of a contract that protected ST’s trade secrets. In ABS
Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, 914 F.3d 1054, 1059 (7th Cir. 2019), rehʹg denied (Feb. 28, 2019),
we addressed the patent and contract claims; the antitrust claim was not part of the
appeal. We concluded that the jury’s verdict with respect to two of the patent claims had
to be set aside, and so we remanded for further proceedings on that aspect of the case.
While the appeal was underway, the district court awarded substantial attorneys’
fees to ABS and Genus on the antitrust claims; it also awarded costs to Sexing
Technologies. The antitrust fee award is the subject of the current appeal. Because the
antitrust and patent aspects of this case are closely interlinked, however, we conclude
that it would be premature to rule on the fees each side should bear. We therefore
VACATE the district court’s decision regarding attorney’s fees and costs, dkt. 873, and
REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings. We express no opinion
on the way in which the district court ultimately must balance each party’s success or
failure on different parts of the case.

-- 2 of 2 --