For over a decade, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has been the primary venue for “Schedule A” intellectual property (IP) lawsuits. These cases enable brand owners to sue numerous online sellers simultaneously for alleged infringement of copyrights, trademarks, and patents on major platforms like Amazon and eBay. However, recent judicial scrutiny suggests that the procedural landscape for such cases may be shifting.
In June 2025, Judge John F. Kness of the Northern District of Illinois issued a stay on all pending motions in several Schedule A cases, signaling a reevaluation of the court’s approach to these mass-defendant lawsuits. This move reflects growing concerns about the fairness and procedural integrity of consolidating numerous defendants into a single action without individualized consideration. ([hh-law.com](https://hh-law.com/kness-opinion/?utm_source=openai))
Historically, the Northern District of Illinois has been a favored jurisdiction for Schedule A litigation due to its willingness to grant ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs) that freeze defendants’ assets and halt sales of allegedly infringing products. This approach has been particularly effective against online sellers, many of whom are based overseas and may otherwise evade enforcement efforts. ([sites.suffolk.edu](https://sites.suffolk.edu/jhtl/2025/05/06/northern-district-of-illinois-v-the-internet-why-illinois-is-an-emerging-hub-in-schedule-a-cases/?utm_source=openai))
However, the efficiency of this mechanism has raised due process concerns. Defendants often become aware of the lawsuits only after their assets have been frozen, leaving them with limited opportunity to respond. This practice has led to debates about the balance between protecting IP rights and ensuring fair legal proceedings. ([asiaiplaw.com](https://www.asiaiplaw.com/sector/patents/suing-by-email-a-legal-scheme-targeting-chinese-sellers?utm_source=openai))
Data indicates a significant increase in Schedule A filings in the Northern District of Illinois. In 2023, 80% of all design patent cases against Schedule A defendants in the U.S. were filed in this district, marking an 84% increase over the previous year. This trend underscores the district’s central role in addressing online IP infringement. ([lexisnexis.com](https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/lex-machina/b/lex-machina/posts/schedule-a-cases-continue-to-rise-in-the-northern-district-of-illinois?utm_source=openai))
Despite the volume of cases, some judges within the district have begun to question the appropriateness of the Schedule A mechanism. Judge Kness’s recent actions suggest a potential shift toward more stringent requirements for plaintiffs, including demonstrating proper joinder of defendants and providing more detailed allegations of infringement. ([jdsupra.com](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ndil-hits-pause-schedule-a-suits-face-9862860/?utm_source=openai))
Legal practitioners should anticipate heightened scrutiny in Schedule A cases moving forward. This may involve more rigorous evaluations of the connections between defendants, the specificity of infringement claims, and the necessity of ex parte relief. As the court continues to refine its approach, both plaintiffs and defendants must adapt to evolving standards that aim to balance efficient IP enforcement with procedural fairness.