For years, Schedule A litigation offered rights holders a powerful mechanism to confront widespread online infringement. Schedule A cases became synonymous with speed and scale, by allowing plaintiffs to proceed against multiple anonymous sellers in a single action, seeking early injunctive relief. That era has ended. What has emerged in its place is a more disciplined, litigation-centric model—one that still offers meaningful value when deployed thoughtfully.

In the wake of heightened judicial scrutiny, particularly in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, rights holders must now approach Schedule A not as a default enforcement tactic, but as a targeted tool within a broader litigation strategy. This article addresses when asserting claims through Schedule A remains useful, how such cases should be structured, and what courts increasingly expect from plaintiffs who invoke this procedure.

Background

Historically, Schedule A litigation thrived on aggregation. Plaintiffs routinely grouped dozens or hundreds of unrelated sellers together, relied on generalized allegations of infringement, and sought ex parte temporary restraining orders and asset freezes at the outset of the case. For a time, courts were receptive to that approach, particularly in jurisdictions facing a surge of counterfeit-related filings.¹ Recent developments, however, reflect a judicial recalibration.

Beginning in mid-2025, courts—most notably Judge John F. Kness in the Northern District of Illinois—began openly questioning whether the traditional Schedule A framework complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due-process requirements.² Concerns have focused on mass joinder under Rule 20, the routine sealing of pleadings, and the use of prejudgment asset restraints without individualized showings of jurisdiction, liability, or irreparable harm.³ These concerns have reshaped the landscape for plaintiffs considering asserting such claims.

New Framework: A Plaintiff’s Guide

Linking Defendants

In this environment, Schedule A remains most effective when infringement is genuinely coordinated, rather than merely parallel. Courts are increasingly receptive where plaintiffs can demonstrate concrete connections among defendants, such as shared ownership, common control, overlapping payment processors, or coordinated storefront infrastructure. Where defendants operate independently and are linked only by similar goods or marketplace platforms, joining defendants in one action is far more vulnerable to challenge.4 The implication for rights holders is straightforward: fewer defendants, better supported.

Pre-Suit Due Diligence

Of equal importance is the evidentiary posture at filing. Courts now expect complaints to reflect defendant-specific investigation rather than formulaic pleading. Assertions grounded in test purchases, documented forum sales, and clearly articulated chains of infringement are more likely to withstand early scrutiny and support injunctive relief. This shift favors rights holders willing to invest in pre-suit diligence and discourages purely speculative enforcement.

Timing

Timing also matters. Schedule A assertion is particularly useful where rapid disruption is necessary to prevent ongoing harm, such as during seasonal sales cycles, coordinated counterfeit launches, or marketplace events that magnify consumer confusion. In those circumstances, early injunctive relief—while no longer presumed—remains available where plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 65’s requirements with particularity.5 In contrast, when infringement is scattered and low in volume, targeted actions against individual defendants or the use of platform-based remedies may prove more efficient.

Venue

Venue selection has also become a critical component of assertion strategy. With the Northern District of Illinois no longer functioning as a high-volume Schedule A forum, plaintiffs must evaluate alternative jurisdictions based on defendant contacts, marketplace activity, and judicial receptivity. Districts such as the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida have seen increased activity, but they impose their own procedural expectations and should not be approached as substitutes for the old NDIL model.6

Plaintiff’s Intentions Beyond a TRO

From a strategic standpoint, modern Schedule A litigation is increasingly used as a front-end identification and leverage mechanism rather than a complete enforcement solution. In practice, rights holders often assert claims through a narrowly tailored Schedule A filing, identify defendants through expedited discovery, and then proceed with follow-on litigation against the most significant infringers. This approach aligns with courts’ growing preference for precision over scale, and allows plaintiffs to allocate resources where enforcement will have the greatest impact.7

For rights holders, the most significant change is conceptual. Asserting IP rights through Schedule A is no longer about volume or speed alone. It is about credibility. Courts are signaling that they will entertain coordinated enforcement where plaintiffs demonstrate restraint, preparation, and willingness to litigate beyond the TRO stage. Plaintiffs who rely on overbreadth or procedural leverage risk early dismissal, severance, or adverse precedent.

Conclusion

Looking forward, Schedule A litigation will continue to occupy a narrower but still important role in IP enforcement. It is best suited for coordinated infringement networks, repeat offenders, and situations where early disruption is essential. It is least effective as a blunt instrument against large numbers of unrelated sellers. Rights holders who understand this distinction—and structure their assertions accordingly—can continue to use Schedule A as a powerful component of a modern enforcement program.

In short, Schedule A is no longer a shortcut. It is a litigation tool. When used with discipline, evidence, and strategic clarity, it still works.

Sources

1. See Understanding Schedule A Trademark Litigation: A Step-by-Step Guide, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/understanding-schedule-a-trademark-litigation-a-step-by-step-guide/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2026).
2. See Jeffrey A. Schwimmer, ND Illinois Judge Stays All His Schedule A Trademark Suits to Reassess, SCHWIMMER LEGAL BLOG (June 2025), https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2025/06/nd-illinois-judge-stays-all-his-schedule-a-trademark-suits-to-reassess.html.
3. See Ryan M. Bowman, NDIL Shreds the Schedule A Playbook, JD SUPRA (2025), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ndil-shreds-the-schedule-a-playbook-8074356/.
4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Bowman, supra note 3.
5. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
6. See Dentons, Schedule A Litigation Faces New Scrutiny as Plaintiffs Reassess Venue Strategy (July 2025), https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/july/30/schedule-a-cases.
7. See TFL Editors, How a Guitar Amp Lawsuit Is Rewriting Retail’s Schedule A Playbook, THE FASHION LAW (2025), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/how-a-guitar-amp-lawsuit-is-rewriting-retails-schedule-a-playbook/.