Over the past decade, the Northern District of Illinois has become a focal point for intellectual property (IP) litigation, particularly through the use of “Schedule A” lawsuits. These cases involve a single plaintiff suing numerous alleged infringers—often foreign entities operating online storefronts—under a sealed schedule. This approach has been favored by brands seeking efficient enforcement mechanisms against counterfeiters. However, recent judicial decisions indicate growing skepticism toward this practice.
In November 2024, U.S. District Judge John Blakey dismissed a copyright infringement case against 18 defendants, citing insufficient allegations connecting them. Similarly, Judge Sunil Harjani denied a temporary restraining order against 59 defendants due to a lack of demonstrated relationship among them. Judge Jeremy Daniel also dismissed a trademark infringement case filed by Toyota against 103 defendants, emphasizing that the defendants were competitors rather than conspirators, thus misjoined in a single lawsuit. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/column-chicago-judges-are-starting-push-back-against-sad-scheme-ip-cases-2024-11-19/?utm_source=openai))
These rulings reflect a broader judicial reassessment of Schedule A litigation. Judge Steven Seeger previously described the influx of such cases as a “torrent,” noting that the Chicago federal courthouse had become “an assembly line” for these lawsuits. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/column-chicago-judges-are-starting-push-back-against-sad-scheme-ip-cases-2024-11-19/?utm_source=openai))
The concentration of Schedule A cases in Chicago is notable. Brands like Harry Styles and the NBA have filed numerous lawsuits in the district to combat online counterfeiters. This strategy involves filing IP complaints against large groups of online merchants under a single docket, a practice that has drawn scrutiny from judges and academics. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/brands-flock-to-chicago-court-in-war-on-internet-counterfeiters?utm_source=openai))
Critics argue that this approach can deprive defendants of due process. Many are unaware of the lawsuits until restraining orders freeze their assets and shut down their online storefronts, leaving them little choice but to settle. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/column-chicago-judges-are-starting-push-back-against-sad-scheme-ip-cases-2024-11-19/?utm_source=openai))
In response to these concerns, some judges are reevaluating the handling of Schedule A cases. Judge Gary Feinerman has implemented a stay order to reassess the court’s approach, including the appropriateness of ex parte proceedings and the mass joinder of defendants. ([chicagoiplitigation.com](https://www.chicagoiplitigation.com/?utm_source=openai))
As the Northern District of Illinois continues to grapple with the complexities of Schedule A litigation, these developments signal a potential shift toward more stringent scrutiny of mass IP infringement filings, balancing the need for efficient enforcement with the protection of defendants’ rights.