Final pretrial orders frame the issues for trial. Minemyer v. R-Boc Reps., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 392, 397-98 (N.D. Ill. 2012). These orders may only be modified to prevent manifest injustice.

The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction may be waived if not timely raised. See, e.g., Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 392, 395 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (“Even a valid defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can be deemed waived if it is not raised in a timely fashion.”).

Whether called testing the wind, testing the waters, floating a trial balloon, sandbagging, or something else, the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have disapproved the practice of adopting a wait-and-see stance to asserting the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; doing so typically results in waiver. See, e.g., Rice, 38 F.3d at 914; Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 392, 395-96 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (citations omitted). As the Seventh Circuit explained in Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., supra, challenges to personal jurisdiction should be resolved as early as possible "to head off situations in which a defendant, if he thinks the trial is going against him, will plead lack of jurisdiction in order to force the plaintiff to start over in another court, but if he thinks the trial is going well will waive his objection to personal jurisdiction and await the entry of a final judgment that he can use as res judicata to prevent the plaintiff from suing him again."

––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2133, 188 L.Ed.2d 1123 (2014).See, e.g., R–Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, 66 F.Supp.3d 1124, 1127 (N.D.Ill. 2014) ; 2014 WL 4656389 (N.D.Ill. 2014) ; 66 F.Supp.3d 1124 ; 2012 WL 2905733 (N.D.Ill. 2012) ; Minemyer v. R–Boc Representatives, Inc., 2012 WL 2423102 (N.D.Ill. 2012) ; 2012 WL 2422982 (N.D.Ill. 2012) ; 2012 WL 2155240 (N.D.Ill.2012) ; 283 F.R.D. 392 (N.D.Ill. 2012) ; 839 F.Supp.2d 1004 (N.D.Ill.2012) ; 2012 WL 379904 (N.D.Ill.2012) ; 2012 WL 346621 (N.D.Ill.2012) ; 2011 WL 1113146 (N.D.Ill.2011) ; 2011 WL 1099265 (N.D.Ill.2011) ; 2010 WL 3787093 (N.D.Ill.2010) ; 2009 WL 3738395 (N.D.Ill.2009) ; 2009 WL 3757378 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ; 695 F.Supp.2d 797 (N.D.Ill.2009) ; 678 F.Supp.2d 691 (N.D.Ill.2009).In December 2011, three months before the first trial began, the R–BOC defendants sued Mr. Minemyer, seeking a declaration that the R–BOC defendants' "redesigned" coupler did not infringe Mr. Minemyer's patent.

The practice of deliberately building error into the record, a practice commonly known as "sandbagging," is strongly disfavored by our courts. People v. David , 96 Ill. App. 3d 419, 422, 51 Ill.Dec. 804, 421 N.E.2d 312 (1981) ; Minemyer v. R–Boc Representatives, Inc. , 283 F.R.D. 392, 397 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Sandbagging can result in the waiver or forfeiture of all issues, including purported violations of constitutional rights. Stern v. Marshall , 564 U.S. 462, 482, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) ("the consequences of ‘a litigant ... "sandbagging" the court—remaining silent about his objection and belatedly raising the error only if the case does not conclude in his favor’ [citation]—can be particularly severe").