In a significant development within intellectual property litigation, defendants in “Schedule A” cases are employing a novel strategy to challenge numerous default judgments previously entered against them. This approach has been described by legal experts as “basically unprecedented,” highlighting its rarity and potential impact on the legal landscape.
“Schedule A” litigation involves rights holders filing a single complaint against multiple online sellers, often listed in a sealed “Schedule A” attachment. Plaintiffs typically seek ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs) to freeze defendants’ assets and halt alleged infringing activities, frequently leading to default judgments when defendants fail to respond. This method has been scrutinized for its procedural shortcomings, with critics arguing it may violate various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In response, defendants are now collectively moving to overturn these default judgments by challenging the procedural integrity of the initial filings. They argue that the mass joinder of defendants and the sealing of their identities deprived them of proper notice and the opportunity to defend themselves, thereby violating due process rights. This coordinated effort marks a departure from traditional individual appeals and could set a precedent for future mass-defendant litigation.
Courts are beginning to address these challenges. For instance, the District of New Jersey issued Standing Order 2025-04, which imposes stricter requirements on plaintiffs in “Schedule A” cases. The order mandates that plaintiffs demonstrate personal jurisdiction over each defendant and limits the joinder of multiple defendants unless they are part of the same operation. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in dismissal of the case.
Legal scholars and practitioners are closely monitoring these developments. The outcome of these collective motions could reshape the approach to intellectual property enforcement against online sellers and influence the balance between protecting rights holders and ensuring fair treatment of defendants in mass litigation scenarios.