Rather, defendants cite the arbitration agreement in the TGI/AIM contract, to which N&M and Giessler were not parties. Generally, non-signatories cannot enforce arbitration agreements. Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 420 F. Supp. 2d 876, 881 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (Kennelly, J.) (recognizing that ". . . a party cannot ordinarily compel arbitration unless it is a party to a contract with an arbitration clause . . ." before listing the limited exceptions to that rule).

In the interests of completeness, however, the court briefly notes that Allied's request for an anti-suit injunction would fail as Allied itself acknowledges that Ms. Beaman's pending Canada suit does not name Allied as a defendant. See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 10 F.3d 425, 428 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussing parallel nature of suits and considering whether foreign action should be enjoined in favor of parallel case pending in Illinois); see also Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson Johnson, 420 F.Supp.2d 876, 883 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ("an anti-suit injunction should issue only if the parties are the same in both matters, the resolution of the case before the enjoining court is dispositive of the action to be enjoined, and the foreign action threatens the jurisdiction or the strong public policies of the enjoining forum"). Moreover, a party's characterization of a foreign suit as frivolous does not necessarily entitle it to an anti-suit injunction from a federal court preventing the foreign suit from proceeding.

We have already recognized that the availability of different remedies is insufficient to create a substantive difference between otherwise-similar cases. See Allendale , 10 F.3d at 429 (affirming an antisuit injunction despite differing dam-ages limits in the United States and France); see also Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson , 420 F.Supp.2d 876, 885 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ("the potential issuance of a European patent does not change the fact that the legal issues in the two cases are the same").With respect to vexatiousness, the district court reviewed the two actions and concluded, "1st Source's conduct in filing suit in Brazil could at worst be characterized as heavy handed.

The district court ordered arbitration. 420 F.Supp.2d 876 (N.D.Ill.2006). The International Center for Dispute Resolution appointed a three-member panel, which oversaw extensive discovery and held a 35–day hearing.

“[T]he case for an anti-suit injunction is most compelling when a party seeks to both enforce a judgment and avoid duplicate litigation.” Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 420 F.Supp.2d 876, 884 (N.D. Ill. 2006); see also id. (“‘where one court has already reached a judgment-on the same issues, involving the same parties-considerations of comity have diminished force'”) (quoting Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004))

In various contexts, courts in New York and elsewhere have recognized that "an unincorporated division ... has no separate legal existence apart from its parent corporation." Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson , 420 F. Supp. 2d 876, 879 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ; accordW. Beef, Inc. v. Compton Inv. Co. , 611 F.2d 587, 591 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing In re Sugar Indus. Antitrust Litig. , 579 F.2d 13, 18 (3d Cir. 1978) ); cf.Greenbaum v. Svenska Handlesbanken , 26 F. Supp. 2d 649, 654 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (concluding that a branch bank is not a separate legal entity from its parent company "in the same way that an unincorporated division of a corporation cannot be sued or indicted").

However, a federal court's power to enjoin a party from litigation in another country is well established. Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 420 F.Supp.2d 876, 883 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Nalco must make an initial showing that the issuance of the injunction is needed to prevent "gratuitously duplicative" and "vexatious or oppressive" foreign litigation.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Wells Fargo division conducted and controlled Wells Fargo and that the Bank of America divisions conducted and controlled Bank of America. Unincorporated divisions, however, have no legal existence separate from the parent corporation. Affymax v. Johnson & Johnson, 420 F. Supp.2d 876, 879 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ("An unincorporated division like PRI, however, has no separate legal existence apart from its parent corporation."). Plaintiff has alleged that the person is the same as the enterprise, which does not suffice under RICO.

Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, a non-signatory may compel arbitration in two distinct circumstances: when the signatory references to or presumes the existence of a written agreement in asserting its claims against the non-signatory, and when the signatory raises allegations of “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.” Hoffman v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 143 F.Supp.2d 995, 1004–05 (N.D.Ill.2001) (quoting MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir.1999)); see also Hughes Masonry Co. v. Greater Clark Cnty. Sch. Bldg. Corp., 659 F.2d 836, 838–39 (7th Cir.1981) (finding that the plaintiff was equitably estopped from arguing that the non-signatory could not invoke the arbitration clause because the basis of the plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory were connected to the contract with the arbitration clause); Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 420 F.Supp.2d 876, 882 (N.D.Ill.2006). Plaintiff brings an eleven-count complaint against Defendants, and seven of Plaintiff's claims specifically name NJB. (R. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 48–61, 66–98.

Ortho moved to compel arbitration, and this Court granted Ortho's motion. Affymax, Inc. v. Johnson Johnson, 420 F. Supp. 2d 876 (N.D. Ill. 2006). After more than four years, a three-member arbitration panel issued an award determining the parties' rights to the contested patents and patent applications.