Millennium Outdoors, LLC v. Leader Accessories LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILLENIUM OUTDOORS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEADER ACCESSORIES, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
23-cv-106-jdp
Plaintiff Millenium Outdoors has prevailed by default on its claims that defendant
Leader Accessories, LLC infringed its design patents and trade dress in a folding boat seat. After
receiving the parties’ documentary evidence, the court ruled from the bench that Millenium
Outdoors was entitled to $78,094.05 in damages, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction
to prevent further infringement. Dkt. 121 (transcript of hearing).
Two issues are before the court. First, Leader Accessories has filed several objections to
the court’s draft injunction, which the court will mostly overrule. Second, Millenium Outdoors
has filed a petition for its attorney fees and costs, which Leader Accessories objects to as
excessive. The court concludes that the requested fees and costs are reasonable and adequately
supported, so it will grant Millenium Outdoors the full amount requested.
ANALYSIS
A. Injunction
The court concluded at the end of the hearing on default judgment that Millenium
Outdoors is entitled to a permanent injunction to prevent Leader Accessories from infringing
its design patents and trade dress in its folding boat seat. The court circulated a draft
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 1 of 11

2
injunction, Dkt. 120, and Leader Accessories submitted five objections, which the court will
address in turn.
First, Leader Accessories contends that the injunction improperly binds non-party
Easepal Enterprises, an affiliate of Leader Accessories that manufactures the infringing boat
seats. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction binds the parties, the parties’
officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons “who are in active
concert with” any of the above, if those individuals receive actual notice of the injunction by
personal service or otherwise. But “it does not follow that a litigant’s affiliates may be named
in an injunction.” Lake Shore Asset Mgmt v. CFTC, 511 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 2007). When
an entity is named as a defendant, the injunction “may direct [that entity] to do things within
its power . . . but [it] may not impose obligations directly on other members of the corporate
group.” Id. at 767.
Leader Accessories is correct that the court may not impose obligations directly on
Easepal because it is not a party to this case. See Dkt. 67 (order denying Easepal’s motion to
intervene). But all the draft injunction does is require Leader Accessories “to provide a copy of
this order” to Easepal; it doesn’t actually require Easepal to do anything. The court sees no
reason to remove this requirement. It is justified in light of the repeated failure of Easepal’s
managers and employees to provide satisfactory answers to basic questions such as when they
learned about this lawsuit. See generally Dkt. 35 (discussing Easepal employee Matthew Wu’s
inadequate explanation of when he received notice of the lawsuit); Dkt. 67 (discussing
Easepal’s failure to explain whether it had communicated with Leader Accessories about this
lawsuit).
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 2 of 11

3
The court will, however, adjust the injunction’s wording to clarify that the court is not
deciding whether the injunction binds Easepal under Rule 65(d)(2). As the court explained in
its order on the motion to intervene, if Millenium Outdoors wants to enforce the injunction
against Easepal, it will have to show that Easepal either aids or abets or is in privity with Leader
Accessories, and Easepal will be entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Dkt. 67, at
6–7. The draft injunction states that Leader Accessories must notify all persons in active
concert or participation with it, “including but not limited to Leader Accessories’ affiliate Easepal
Enterprises Limited,” which could imply that the court is making a finding of active concert or
participation. Dkt. 120, at 4 (emphasis added). To clarify that it is not deciding that issue, the
court will revise the relevant paragraph as follows:
Defendant Leader Accessories LLC and its counsel shall provide a
copy of this order to every officer, agent, servant, employee, and
attorney of Leader Accessories, including but not limited to
Richard Chen, Matthew Wu, and Jeffrey Chen, and to any other
persons who may be in active concert or participation with Leader
Accessories or with its officers, agents, servants, employees, or
attorneys. Leader Accessories and its counsel shall also provide a
copy 	of 	this 	order 	to 	Leader 	Accessories’ 	affiliate 	Easepal
Enterprises Limited. The court takes no position as to whether
Easepal is an agent of Leader Accessories or is in active concert or
participation with Leader Accessories under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(d)(2).
Second, Leader Accessories argues that the injunction impermissibly extends beyond
the term of Millenium Outdoors’ design patents, which expire on April 21, 2029. See Dkt 1-1
and Dkt. 1-2. The court agrees that Paragraphs 6 through 11 of the injunction, which protect
only Millenium Outdoors’ design patents, should expire when the patents do. See Midtronics,
Inc. v. Aurora Performance Prods. LLC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 970, 973 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Extreme
Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., No. 07-CV-229-BBC, 2008 WL 4756498, at *4 (W.D.
Wis. Oct. 29, 2008), vacated on other grounds, 395 F. App’x 709 (Fed. Cir. 2010). But the court
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 3 of 11

4
will not impose a time limit on the remaining portions of the injunction, which protect
Millenium Outdoors’ trade dress.
Leader Accessories contends that the trade dress protection should also be time limited
because a patent owner cannot “extend[] the exclusivity” of its patent by asserting that the
same features that comprised its patent are its trade dress. Dkt. 122, at 9. But that contention
is foreclosed by Kohler Co. v. Moen Inc., 12 F.3d 632, 638 (7th Cir. 1993) and by W.T. Rogers
Co. v. Keene, 778 F.2d 334, 337 (7th Cir. 1985), which held that the statute authorizing 14-year
design patents does not prevent a party from also enforcing a trademark in a design feature.
See Kohler, 12 F.3d at 638 (“a product’s different qualities can be protected simultaneously, or
successively, by more than one of the statutory means for protection of intellectual property”).
The cases Leader Accessories cites for the opposite view are not instructive. The courts in those
cases did not deny trademark protection on a categorical basis because plaintiffs had a patent;
they denied it because plaintiffs hadn’t established the necessary elements for trademark
protection. Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., 326 U.S. 249, 256 (1945) (citing Kellogg Co. v.
Nat’l Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 117–20 (1938) and citing Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163
U.S. 169, 185 (1896), which held that a company’s product name was not distinctive because
it had become a generic descriptor for the product during the term of the company’s exclusive
patent); Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (trade dress was
functional). In this case, Millenium Outdoors has established trade dress protection by virtue
of Leader Accessories’ default. That protection is permanent as long as the trade dress is used
to distinguish and identify Millenium Outdoors’ product. Kohler, 12 F.3d at 637.
Third, Leader Accessories objects to the following portions of the injunction as
impermissibly vague under Rule 65(d):
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 4 of 11

5
• 	The prohibition on manufacturing, importing, distributing, or selling “any
product that imitates Millenium’s protected trade dress.” Dkt. 20, ¶ 2.
• 	The prohibition on “facilitating” third-party infringement. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8, 11.
• 	The prohibition on products that are “colorable imitations” or “confusingly
similar” to Millenium Outdoors’ trade dress. Id. ¶ 3.
• 	The prohibition on products “derived” from the infringing boat seat. Id. ¶¶ 7,
10.
Leader Accessories concedes that these are terms of art in patent and trademark law. But it
argues that using these terms in the injunction amounts to an impermissible order to obey the
law, which violates the equitable principle that an injunction should prohibit no more than the
violation established in the litigation and similar conduct reasonably related to the violation.
See EEOC. v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2013). The court disagrees. The injunction
is properly targeted at Leader Accessories’ infringing boat seat and similar products. It does not
describe every way that Leader Accessories could infringe, but “the Rule does not require the
impossible . . . Rule 65(d) does not require a torrent of words when more words would not
produce more enlightenment about what is forbidden.” Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc.,
772 F.2d 1423, 1431–32 (7th Cir. 1985) (declining to invalidate an injunction prohibiting any
“colorable imitation” of an infringing trademark). Leader Accessories does not propose
alternative language, and the court concludes that these terms are sufficiently precise given the
inherent impossibility of prohibiting specific acts of future infringement.
Fourth, Leader Accessories asserts in conclusory fashion that the injunction bars a broad
range of otherwise legal activity. But it doesn’t point to any specific portions of the injunction
that bar legal activity, nor does the court see any. The injunction prohibits Leader Accessories
from continued infringement of Millenium Outdoors’ design patents and trade dress, which is
not legal activity.
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 5 of 11

6
Fifth, Leader Accessories asserts that the injunction lacks a territorial limitation, so it
“potentially prohibit[s] Leader Accessories from engaging in legitimate activities outside the
United States.” That’s not accurate. Each paragraph in the injunction explicitly states that
Leader Accessories is prohibited from engaging in certain activities “in the United States,” so
the injunction cannot be reasonably interpreted as prohibiting Leader Accessories from
engaging in legitimate activities abroad.
In sum, the court will adjust the injunction to add a time limit to the patent protections
and to clarify that it is not deciding whether Easepal Enterprises Limited is in active concert
with Leader Accessories. The remainder of the injunction will remain as is.
B. Attorney fees
The court has determined that Millenium Outdoors is entitled to its reasonable attorney
fees in this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117. The reasonableness of attorney
fees is determined using the lodestar method, multiplying the attorney’s reasonable hourly rate
by the number of hours reasonably expended. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–37
(1983); Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632, 639 (7th Cir. 2011). Millenium
Outdoors has requested $355,169.25 in fees, which reflects 770.55 hours billed by attorneys
at two law firms. Dkt. 124. Lead counsel at each firm submitted billing records and declarations
explaining the basis for their hourly rates and confirming that all the fees in the billing records
were billed to Millenium Outdoors. Dkt. 125 and Dkt. 126. Counsel also confirmed that
Millenium Outdoors has actually paid all the fees through October 31, 2025, and that counsel
expects Millenium Outdoors to promptly pay the remaining fees when they come due. Id.
Leader Accessories does not object to counsel’s hourly rates, but it contends that the
number of hours counsel expended on this case was excessive. Leader Accessories asserts that
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 6 of 11

7
the billing records reveal substantial duplicative work, excessive internal conferences and
communications, and excessive time spent on routine matters such as filing documents and
reviewing court orders. To support its arguments, Leader Accessories compiled a lengthy
document that appears to be a list of all the time entries involving internal communications
between counsel. Dkt. 130-2.
There may be room to debate whether all the internal communications and time spent
drafting and reviewing documents were absolutely necessary. But courts review fee petitions
for reasonableness, not perfection. Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (“The essential goal
in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.”).
Leader Accessories offers only general criticisms of counsel’s time entries; it doesn’t identify
any specific entries or sets of entries to support its allegations of duplicative work and excessive
internal communications. Nor does the court’s own review suggest that counsel’s conferences
were unnecessary, extended, or over-staffed, or that counsel engaged in duplicative work.
The essence of Leader Accessories’ opposition is that 770 hours is an unusually large
amount of time to spend on a default case in which compensatory damages were less than
$30,000. On that point, the court agrees. But the court of appeals has repeatedly rejected a
rule that attorney fees are necessarily unreasonable if they are greater, even significantly, than
the plaintiff’s damages. E.g., Anderson v. AB Painting and Sandblasting Inc., 578 F.3d 542, 545
(7th Cir. 2009); Eddleman v. Switchcraft, Inc., 927 F.2d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 1991). This case
required substantially more work than a typical default case and the blame for that rests almost
entirely with Leader Accessories, who litigated this case from the beginning in a manner
intended to obfuscate and delay. In the early stages of this case, Leader Accessories concealed
the location of its principal place of business and denied receiving any information about the
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 7 of 11

8
lawsuit for months. As a result, Millenium Outdoors had to go to substantial lengths to serve
Leader Accessories and to demonstrate that it had in fact known about this lawsuit from the
beginning. See Dkt. 35 (describing Leader Accessories’ deceptive behavior before and after entry
of default). Even after the court denied the motion to set aside the default, Leader Accessories
continued to engage in tactics to get around the default: its close affiliate Easepal Enterprises
moved to intervene (without providing good cause for waiting nearly two years to do so), and
then Leader Accessories moved to stay the case less than two weeks before trial to allow the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the parties’ design patents. Dkt. 67 and
Dkt. 90. 1 Leader Accessories’ own behavior drove up the litigation costs in this case, so it
cannot object to Millenium Outdoors’ counsel doing what is necessary to prevail. See BCS
Servs., Inc. v. BG Investments, Inc., 728 F.3d 633, 642 (7th Cir. 2013) (declining to reduce fees
when “[t]he defendants were hyperaggressive adversaries” and “drove up the plaintiffs’ legal
costs without justification”).
Leader Accessories also contends that the fee award should be reduced because of block
billing in counsel’s time sheets, particularly in the records from the Bradley firm. See Dkt. 130-1
(Leader Accessories’ compilation of Millenium Outdoors’ block billing entries). Block billing
does warrant close inspection, but it is not a prohibited practice. Farfaras v. Citizens Bank &
Trust of Chi., 433 F.3d 558, 569 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, the court does not see the block billing
as problematic, because none of the examples that Leader Accessories points to suggest that
counsel’s billing practices are concealing non-recoverable fees. Most of the examples include
1 Easepal and Leader Accessories share the same leadership and the same counsel. See Dkt. 67.
Leader Accessories does not contend in its opposition to the fee petition that the fees necessary
to respond to Easepal’s motion are non-compensable, so the court will not consider that issue.
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 8 of 11

9
closely related tasks that represent components of a single, larger task; many of them list within
the billing entry the amount of time that counsel spent on different components of the task;
and all of them are thoroughly described. Dkt. 130-1.
Ultimately, “the best evidence of whether attorney’s fees are reasonable is whether a
party has paid them.” Matlin v. Spin Master Corp., 979 F.3d 1177, 1183 (7th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Cintas Corp. v. Perry, 517 F.3d 459, 469–70 (7th Cir. 2008)). Millenium Outdoors
has paid the requested fees, and the court’s review did not suggest that the fees were
unreasonable as a general matter. The court will grant Millenium Outdoors’ petition and award
the full $355,169.25 in fees.
C. Costs
Millenium Outdoors also requests $19,926.91 in costs. Leader Accessories does not
object to any of the taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. But it objects to Millenium
Outdoors’ requests for $1,672.70 in legal research costs and for $1,513.09 in travel costs, which
are not recoverable under § 1920 and which Leader Accessories says are not recoverable under
35 U.S.C. § 285 either.
Computerized legal research costs are recoverable only as part of an award of attorney
fees, not as costs. Craftwood II, Inc. v. Generac Power Sys., Inc., 63 F.4th 1121 (7th Cir. 2023). If
a party is entitled to attorney fees, legal research costs are recoverable only if the party shows
that counsel billed for legal research separately from its hourly rate. Mowery v. Metro. Life Ins.
Co., No. 16-cv-516-jdp, 2017 WL 3575857 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 18, 2017). Here, the Bradley
firm’s records and Attorney Gipson’s declaration show that the firm consistently billed its legal
research costs to Millenium Outdoors and that Millenium Outdoors paid those costs. Dkt. 125
and Dkt. 125-2. So the court concludes that these are recoverable under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 9 of 11

10
15 U.S.C. § 1117. Although the parties describe them as costs, the court will shift them into
the fee award to reflect the Seventh Circuit’s view that they are fees.
As for the travel expenses, § 285 permits the prevailing party to recover disbursements
that were necessary for the case. Third Wave Techs., Inc. v. Stratagene Corp., No. 04-c-0680-c,
2006 WL 517629, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 21, 2006) (citing Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp.,718
F.2d 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). That includes meals while travelling or otherwise on the job. SSI
Techs., LLC v. Dongguan Zhengyang Elec. Mech. LTD, No. 20-cv-19-jdp, 2025 WL 1793313, at
*2 (W.D. Wis. June 30, 2025). The court is persuaded that Attorney Gipson’s trips to meet
with his client for deposition preparation and to attend the final pretrial conference were
necessary, so it will not deduct the travel and meal costs associated with those trips.
Finally, Leader Accessories argues that Millenium Outdoors failed to provide affidavits
to support its costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1924, which states the following:
Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of
cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by
himself or by his duly authorized attorney or agent having
knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been
necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for which
fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.
Leader Accessories is correct that counsel for Millenium Outdoors did not submit affidavits in
support of its costs. But it did submit declarations from lead counsel at both firms stating under
penalty of perjury that the billing records and costs submitted with the fee petition were
accurate. Dkt. 125 and Dkt. 126. This court and others have repeatedly held similar
declarations to satisfy the purpose of § 1924. Donohoo v. Hanson, No. 14-cv-309-wmc, 2017
WL 1250437 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 4, 2017); Hardwick v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 2010 WL 3270053,
at *2 (C.D. Ill. 2010); Kristofek v. Vill. of Orland Hills, No. 11 C 7455, 2014 WL 7145543, at
*2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2014).
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 10 of 11

11
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	In accordance with MillerCoors LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, 940 F.3d 922,
922–23 (7th Cir. 2019), a permanent injunction is set forth in a separate document.
2. 	Plaintiff Millenium Outdoors, LLC, is awarded $356,841.95 in attorneys’ fees and
$18,254.21 in costs.
3. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff and close this case.
Entered January 12, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00106-jdp Document #: 132 Filed: 01/12/26 Page 11 of 11