Schedule A Defendant (“SAD”) cases are intellectual property infringement lawsuits in which the plaintiff, who is typically a trademark or copyright holder, accuses numerous online sellers of selling allegedly counterfeit goods. The plaintiff lists the defendant sellers in an exhibit attached to the complaint called “Schedule A.” Recently, certain federal district court judges have indicated a willingness to give SAD cases increased scrutiny.
For example, on June 11, 2025, District Judge John F. Kness of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered a temporary suspension of all pending motions related to SAD cases.[1] Judge Kness indicated that he intends to reassess the approach for handling SAD cases, including whether: “(1) ex parte proceedings are appropriate in these types of cases; (2) the routine sealing of parts or all of the docket is appropriate; (3) the routine granting of temporary restraining orders on an ex parte basis is a sound exercise of judicial discretion; (4) the routine granting of prejudgment asset restraints is a sound exercise of judicial discretion; and (5) the mass joinder of defendants is appropriate under the circumstances typically present” in SAD cases. Judge Kness also indicated that, during his reassessment, plaintiffs may elect to dismiss their cases in order to pursue their claims in a different district court.
Similarly, on July 10, 2025, District Judge Nicholas Ranjan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a standing order for SAD cases.[2] The standing order notes that an “uptick” in SAD cases “has caused the Court to reconsider its administrative procedures for these types of cases.” The order acknowledges the “issues of counterfeit sales leading to the dilution of rightsholders’ intellectual property,” but notes that “the current procedures run the risk of violating defendants’ due process rights.” The order provides a procedural guideline highlighting six factors that Judge Ranjan will consider when dealing with SAD cases:
- Joinder: The complaint must satisfy the joinder requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which requires (1) a single defendant or group of defendants acting under the same operator; and (2) payment of a separate filing fee for each separate complaint. Each complaint should only include related intellectual property due to anticipated issues during the defendant-specific assessment of personal jurisdiction, specifically in cases that involve foreign defendants.
- Evidence: The complaint must satisfy the “threshold requirement” of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11 that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Accordingly, the complaint must provide enough evidence of each defendant’s alleged contact with the forum to establish personal jurisdiction.
- Service of Process: Any motion for alternate service must establish (a) that the plaintiff made an effort to determine each defendant’s country of residence and the validity of each defendant’s address; (b) that the plaintiff attempted service by the usual means, and (c) that the Hague Convention permits alternate service requests in each defendant’s residing country. The order suggests that plaintiffs may save costs by emailing waiver-of-service forms to defendants.
- Asset Restraints: Judge Ranjan does not intend to grant ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) motions and will not grant TRO and preliminary injunction motions without supporting facts or evidence. Further, Judge Ranjan will not grant any TRO motions to freeze online accounts, and will avoid blanket asset freezes, unless the plaintiff can show that (a) the defendant is transferring assets to avoid judgment, and (b) the defendant was provided with notice.
- Sealing Requirements: Judge Ranjan noted that he is unlikely to seal any case filings given that he is not considering ex parte TRO motions. If a plaintiff nevertheless files a motion to seal, it must be supported by the grounds set forth in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ case law.[3]
- Case Identification: Plaintiff’s counsel must submit a declaration along with the complaint that identifies any cases that the plaintiff has previously filed against any of the named defendants, including the case number, intellectual property at issue, and case status.
The Western District of Pennsylvania and particularly the Northern District of Illinois have had a surge in filings of SAD cases during the past several years.[4] The recent orders by Judge Kness and Judge Ranjan suggest that certain judges are taking note of these SAD cases and imposing increased procedural scrutiny. Therefore, litigants in SAD cases should be alerted to changes in how these cases are litigated going forward.
[1] Rekas v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-06429, Dkt. No. 7, Minute Entry (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2025).
[2] Bush v. Jinchengzhizegongyinglianyouxiangongsi, et al., No. 2:25-cv-000926, Dkt. No. 13, Standing Order, (W.D. Pa. July 10, 2025). The docket in this case indicates that (1) the plaintiff’s motion to seal was denied and all docket entries were unsealed; (2) the plaintiff’s motions for a TRO and alternative service were denied; and (3) the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-file consistent with the standing order.
[3] In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 671 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing the following factors for a sealing order: “1. whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; 2. whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; 3. whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment; 4. whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; 5 whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency; 6. whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and 7. whether the case involves issues important to the public”) (footnote omitted).
[4] See Lex Machina, data.