relationship.” Solo Sales, Inc. v. North America OMCG, Inc., 299 Ill.App.3d 850, 234 Ill. Dec. 312, 702 N.E.2d 652, 653 (Ill.App.Ct. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine is “designed to protect a salesperson who, although no longer an agent or employee when a sale is made, has done everything necessary to effect the sale.” Id., 234 Ill.Dec. at 315-16, 702 N.E.2d at 653-54. Vantage alleges that the procuring cause doctrine entitles it to perpetual commissions on all of De Amertek’s sales of electronic display and control boards to Dixie-Narco. As the district court held, however, the procuring cause doctrine is based upon the procurement of particular sales, not the procurement of customers. See, e.g., Furth v. Inc. Publ’g Corp., 823 F.2d 1178, 1180-81 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Dahly Tool Co. v. Vermont Tap & Die Co., 742
holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law holding that procuring cause doctrine creates entitlement to procurement of particular sales as opposed to procurement of customers holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case recognizing doctrine holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity