Georgia Expo v. OnlineEEI: Consent Judgment & Permanent Injunction on Connector Patent
Georgia Exposition Manufacturing Corporation filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting US Patent No. 10,941,560 against OnlineEEI’s ‘Flat Top’ connector. The case resolved in 264 days with OnlineEEI admitting infringement, admitting the patent’s validity, and accepting a permanent injunction barring further sales.
Connector patent enforced by consent: infringement admitted, injunction entered
Georgia Exposition Manufacturing Corporation filed its complaint on January 17, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-00595), asserting that Exex Holding Corporation — operating as MEB EEI Holdings, LLC (‘OnlineEEI’) — infringed US Patent No. 10,941,560 through the manufacture, offer for sale, and sale of its ‘Flat Top’ connector products, whether sold individually or as part of a connector system.
The case closed on October 8, 2025 via a consent judgment entered under Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Critically, OnlineEEI expressly admitted both infringement of the ‘560 Patent and the patent’s validity and enforceability — admissions that are unusual in their breadth and carry significant weight for Georgia Expo’s enforcement posture. The court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting OnlineEEI from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the Accused Products or substantially similar products for the life of the patent.
Resolution in 264 days, without proceeding to claim construction or trial, suggests the strength of Georgia Expo’s infringement read was sufficient to drive an early capitulation. The financial terms of the underlying settlement agreement are not disclosed in the public record, so the full commercial value of the resolution remains unknown. The court retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance — meaning enforcement teeth remain available should OnlineEEI breach the injunction.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 264 days
264 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case, suggesting early settlement pressure
Consent judgment with permanent injunction: what each term means
Consent judgment under Rule 65(d): more than a settlement
A consent judgment is a court-entered order, not merely a private contract. Under Rule 65(d), the permanent injunction has the force of law and is directly enforceable through contempt proceedings. OnlineEEI’s admissions of infringement and validity are judicial admissions — they cannot be retracted and may be used against OnlineEEI in any future proceeding involving the ‘560 Patent.
Court-enforced, not just contractualGeorgia Expo secures the strongest possible non-trial outcome
Georgia Expo obtained three critical wins without trial: a judicial finding of infringement, an express admission of the patent’s validity and enforceability, and a permanent injunction covering the Accused Products and all ‘substantially similar’ products. The injunction’s scope — including connector systems containing the accused component — limits design-around attempts. Financial terms of the settlement remain confidential.
Injunction + validity admission securedOnlineEEI’s admissions foreclose future challenges to the ‘560 Patent
By admitting infringement and validity in a court order, OnlineEEI has waived its ability to challenge the ‘560 Patent in future proceedings in relation to these facts. The permanent injunction bars not only OnlineEEI but also its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert — making corporate restructuring an unlikely workaround. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision suggests a negotiated trade-off in the settlement economics.
Barred from future patent challengeA strengthened ‘560 Patent raises the bar for all connector competitors
A court-endorsed admission of validity, combined with a permanent injunction, materially strengthens Georgia Expo’s enforcement position against any third party competing in the connector market. Competitors selling similar ‘Flat Top’ or structurally analogous connector products now face a patent with judicial confirmation of its validity — raising the risk premium for any FTO analysis that touches US10941560. The injunction’s ‘substantially similar’ language further extends the blocking perimeter.
Elevated risk for connector market entrantsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Georgia Exposition Manufacturing Corporation | Company | Connector products manufacturer and patent holder — holder of US10941560Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Exex Holding Corporation | Company | OnlineEEI (MEB EEI Holdings, LLC) — seller of ‘Flat Top’ connector systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James A. Karamanis | Attorney | Counsel for Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John L. North | Attorney | Counsel for Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth A. Nazarian | Attorney | Counsel for Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barney & Karamanis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Taylor English Duma LLP | Law Firm | Representing Georgia Exposition Manufacturing CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Lynn Gordon | Attorney | Counsel for Exex Holding CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lorium Law | Law Firm | Representing Exex Holding CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment’s verdict language is unusually explicit: OnlineEEI not only agreed to settle but entered judicial admissions of infringement and validity on the record. This goes beyond a stipulated dismissal — it constitutes a final judgment against OnlineEEI, binding under res judicata principles. The permanent injunction entered under Rule 65(d) carries contempt-of-court enforcement, giving Georgia Expo a durable and immediately actionable remedy without the uncertainty of a jury trial.
US10941560B2 — Connector technology: the ‘560 Patent explained
US Patent No. 10,941,560 (Application No. US15/727,695) covers connector technology — specifically the design and/or functional architecture of a ‘Flat Top’ connector and its use within broader connector systems. The patent is asserted by Georgia Exposition Manufacturing Corporation, suggesting the technology has direct commercial application in exhibition, event infrastructure, or industrial connector product lines. The application number indicates a standard utility patent prosecution track.
The commercial significance of this patent is demonstrated by the outcome: OnlineEEI’s express admission of both infringement and validity in a court-supervised consent judgment is rare and signals that the ‘560 Patent’s claims are drawn with sufficient precision to read clearly on the accused product. For connector hardware competitors, US10941560 now represents a judicially validated blocking patent — any product with a structurally analogous flat-top connector design warrants careful FTO review before commercialisation.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10941560B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling connector hardware — particularly flat-top connector designs or modular connector systems — should treat US10941560 as a live enforcement risk following this consent judgment. Georgia Expo has now demonstrated both the willingness to litigate in the Northern District of Illinois and the patent strength to extract a full validity admission and permanent injunction. R&D teams developing structurally similar connector architectures face elevated exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your connector product designs against the claim landscape of US10941560, identify prior art that may inform design-around options, and surface related Georgia Expo portfolio patents that may create additional blocking positions. Running a targeted FTO now — before product launch — is materially less costly than defending a consent-judgment-backed infringement action in Chicago.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10941560B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar connector patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore related patent infringement actions involving connector hardware and mechanical component patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois federal court.
What this case signals for the connector hardware IP landscape
A consent judgment with express validity admission is a rare and potent enforcement outcome. Competitors in the connector space should take note.
Consent judgments with validity admissions are powerful precedent tools
Unlike a standard settlement and dismissal, this consent judgment contains OnlineEEI’s on-record admission that US10941560 is valid and enforceable. Georgia Expo can reference this judicial finding in any future enforcement action, materially lowering the evidentiary burden when pursuing other infringers in the connector market.
Permanent injunction scope covers ‘substantially similar’ products — watch design-arounds
The injunction’s language prohibiting products ‘substantially similar’ to the Flat Top connector, including when sold as part of a connector system, is deliberately broad. Any competitor designing around US10941560 must demonstrate meaningful structural departure — incremental modifications are unlikely to escape contempt exposure under this order.
Georgia v Exex — key questions answered
The case resolved via consent judgment on October 8, 2025. OnlineEEI (MEB EEI Holdings, LLC) admitted infringement of US Patent No. 10,941,560 and admitted the patent’s validity and enforceability. The court entered a permanent injunction barring OnlineEEI from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the Flat Top connector and substantially similar products for the life of the patent.
US10941560B2 (Application No. US15/727,695) covers connector technology. Georgia Expo alleged that OnlineEEI’s ‘Flat Top’ connector — sold individually and as part of connector systems — infringed this patent. OnlineEEI’s subsequent admission of infringement in the consent judgment confirms that the accused product fell within the patent’s claims.
OnlineEEI’s admission of validity in a court-entered consent judgment constitutes a judicial admission. This strengthens Georgia Expo’s enforcement position against future infringers, as it provides on-record confirmation of the patent’s validity that can be referenced in subsequent proceedings. OnlineEEI itself is estopped from challenging validity in future disputes.
The injunction prohibits OnlineEEI from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the Accused Products ‘or products substantially similar to the Accused Products, whether alone or part of a connector system.’ This ‘substantially similar’ standard means minor modifications may not escape the injunction’s reach — any design-around would need to show meaningful structural departure from the ‘560 Patent’s claims.
Georgia Expo was represented by Barney & Karamanis LLP, Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP, and Taylor English Duma LLP. Attorneys included James A. Karamanis, John L. North, Kenneth A. Nazarian, and Peter Jones. Defendant OnlineEEI was represented by Jennifer Lynn Gordon of Lorium Law.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.