In Penzick v. Constrafor Inc., 25 C 4555 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2026) (Durkin, J.), Caffarelli & Martin Ltd. successfully represented the Plaintiff and prevailed in defeating the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In a notable ruling, Judge Durkin rejected the Defendant’s argument that “software is intangible property” and therefore not a “product,” calling that position “an obsolete perspective.” The Defendant had moved to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint, brought under the Illinois Sales Representative Act (“SRA”), 820 ILCS 120/1(1), arguing that it did not qualify as a “principal” because the statute requires a principal to manufacture, produce, import, or distribute a product for sale. 820 ILCS 120/1(3)(A).

Caffarelli & Martin Ltd. argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that the definition of “product” should not be limited to tangible goods. The Court agreed, declining to adopt an outdated interpretation rooted in a 1981 Illinois Supreme Court decision. Instead, Judge Durkin emphasized the evolving legal landscape, citing more recent case law and legislative developments supporting a modern understanding of “product” that includes software.

As a result, the Court held that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that Defendant qualifies as a “principal” under the SRA, allowing the claim to proceed. This decision reinforces the proposition that a “product” can include intangible items such as software—an important win for plaintiff-employees.

By Amanda Burns, Caffarelli & Martin Ltd.