For online sellers and businesses, being sued in a Schedule A, intellectual-property action can be disorienting, and cause immediate action. Defendants often learn of the lawsuit only after payment accounts are frozen, storefronts are disabled, or online platforms remove listings without warning. The complaint itself may list dozens, if not hundreds of defendants anonymously, with minimal individualized allegations. Historically, this procedural posture has placed defendants at a severe disadvantage.

Luckily, that dynamic is changing.

Recent developments—most notably heightened judicial scrutiny of Schedule A litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois—have materially altered the strategic landscape for defendants. Courts are increasingly receptive to early challenges, and defendants who act promptly can often mitigate, or reverse the most impactful and disruptive consequences of these suits.

This article outlines how defendants should approach a Schedule A lawsuit in the current environment and why early, informed action matters more than ever.

What is a Schedule A Lawsuit

Schedule A lawsuits typically arise in trademark, copyright, or design patent cases involving alleged online infringement. Rather than naming defendants individually, plaintiffs identify them in a sealed schedule and seek ex parte relief at the outset of the case. The relief requested often includes temporary restraining orders, alternative service, and prejudgment restraints on marketplace accounts, or payment processors.

Critically, these cases are procedural vehicles. They do not establish liability by virtue of filing alone. Plaintiffs must still satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, establish personal jurisdiction, demonstrate proper joinder, and prove entitlement to ex parte, and/or extraordinary relief. Courts have increasingly emphasized that these requirements do not disappear simply because infringement occurs online.¹

How to Approach a Schedule A Lawsuit

One of the most consequential decisions a defendant makes is whether—and when—to appear in the case. Historically, many defendants defaulted or settled quickly due to frozen funds and limited information. That approach is no longer the only option.

Recent opinions have emphasized that ex parte relief is disfavored and must be narrowly justified.² When defendants appear and challenge the basis for the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or asset freeze, courts are often willing to revisit earlier orders issued without adversarial briefing. In several cases, courts have modified or dissolved asset restraints after defendants demonstrated weak jurisdictional ties or insufficient individualized allegations.³

Get Involved Early

An early appearance preserves defenses that may otherwise be waived, including objections to personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and defective service.

Personal jurisdiction is frequently a pressure point in Schedule A cases. Plaintiffs often rely on generalized allegations that online sales into the United States, or use of a national marketplace, establish jurisdiction everywhere. Courts have increasingly rejected this approach, requiring plaintiffs to show defendant-specific contacts with the forum state.4

Similarly, mass joinder under Rule 20 is no longer presumed valid. Courts have expressed skepticism that dozens or hundreds of unrelated sellers offering similar goods are properly joined absent evidence of coordinated activity, shared control, or common ownership.5 Defendants who challenge joinder early may succeed in severing claims, forcing plaintiffs to litigate individually or dismiss altogether.

Defending Against a TRO

Perhaps the most disruptive feature of Schedule A litigation is the prejudgment restraint of assets. Courts have increasingly questioned whether such freezes are permissible where plaintiffs seek only legal damages and have not asserted equitable claims that justify restraint.6

Defendants can and should move to dissolve or narrow asset freezes by demonstrating the absence of irreparable harm, lack of likelihood of success on the merits, or overbreadth of the restraint. Courts have shown a growing willingness to tailor or vacate freezes once defendants appear and present evidence.7

Settlement Approach

Settlement remains an option in many Schedule A cases, but it should be approached strategically rather than reflexively. In the current environment, defendants often have leverage to negotiate more favorable resolutions, particularly where plaintiffs face jurisdictional or joinder vulnerabilities.

Importantly, appearing in the case does not foreclose settlement. In many instances, meaningful negotiation becomes possible only after defendants challenge the procedural posture of the case and signal readiness to litigate.

Conclusion

Being sued in a Schedule A action is no longer a one-way street. Courts are increasingly demanding thoroughness from plaintiffs and affording defendants meaningful opportunities to be heard. Defendants who act promptly, challenge weak procedural foundations, and engage experienced counsel can often reduce or eliminate the most severe consequences of these cases.

The key is early, informed action. In today’s Schedule A environment, silence is no longer the safest option.

Sources

1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k); see also A. Newell, Roadblock or Speedbump for Schedule A Doe Cases in the Northern District of Illinois?, CHICAGO IP LITIG. BLOG (June 2025),.
2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); Jeffrey A. Schwimmer, ND Illinois Judge Stays All His Schedule A Trademark Suits to Reassess, SCHWIMMER LEGAL BLOG (June 2025),.
3. See Ryan M. Bowman, NDIL Shreds the Schedule A Playbook, JD SUPRA (2025),.
4. See id.; see also Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014).
5. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Bowman, supra note 3.
6. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999).
7. See TFL Editors, How a Guitar Amp Lawsuit Is Rewriting Retail’s Schedule A Playbook, THE FASHION LAW (2025),.