For more than a decade, Schedule A litigation was one of the most efficient enforcement tools available to intellectual property owners facing widespread online infringement. Concentrated largely in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, these cases allowed rights holders to proceed against large numbers of anonymous online sellers in a single action, obtain early ex parte relief, and combat infringing activity before it could metastasize across marketplaces. For many brands, Schedule A litigation became a cornerstone of online enforcement strategy.

That landscape has changed.

A New Era
In mid-2025, Judge John F. Kness entered an Order staying all Schedule A cases on his docket while the court reassessed the procedural foundations of these actions.¹ The stay remains in effect, causing immediate and lasting consequences. More importantly, it reflects a broader judicial recalibration rather than a temporary administrative pause. Courts are now asking harder questions about mass joinder, ex parte proceedings, sealed dockets, and prejudgment asset restraints—questions that go to the heart of how Schedule A cases have historically operated.
From a legal perspective, the stay signals heightened scrutiny under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and constitutional due-process principles. In opinions issued around the same period, Judge Kness emphasized that generalized, formulaic allegations repeated across dozens or hundreds of defendants do not satisfy Rule 65(b)’s requirement for specificity, particularly when plaintiffs seek extraordinary relief without notice.² The court also questioned whether secrecy and one-sided proceedings meaningfully advance the public interest in accurate adjudication, as opposed to merely accelerating settlements through procedural leverage.³

The practical effect has been swift. Schedule A filings in the Northern District of Illinois have slowed dramatically, and many plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed stayed cases rather than wait for further guidance.4 For rights holders accustomed to using NDIL as a default enforcement venue, the question is no longer whether Schedule A litigation remains viable, but how it must evolve to remain effective.

A New Approach

What has emerged is not the collapse of Schedule A enforcement, but its redistribution and refinement. Plaintiffs have begun filing Schedule A–style actions in other jurisdictions, most notably the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.5 These courts have, in appropriate cases, shown a willingness to entertain early injunctive relief. At the same time, they have demanded tighter joinder theories, clearer jurisdictional allegations, and more disciplined use of sealing and ex parte procedures. No district has replaced NDIL as a high-volume Schedule A forum, and that appears unlikely to change.

This fragmentation marks a significant shift in the underlying economics of enforcement. The historical Schedule A model relied on scale. Its effectiveness assumed that large defendant groups would survive Rule 20 challenges, that Temporary Restraining Orders (“TROs”) and asset freezes would issue quickly, and that most defendants would not appear. Each of those assumptions is now uncertain. Courts across jurisdictions are increasingly skeptical of joinder theories based solely on the sale of similar goods, and defendants—once identified—are more willing to challenge jurisdiction, venue, and the propriety of asset restraints.6
As a result, Schedule A litigation is transitioning from a volume-driven arbitrage into a litigation-grade enforcement mechanism. The cases that continue to move forward successfully tend to involve smaller defendant groups, concrete evidence of coordinated conduct, and pleadings drafted with the expectation of adversarial proceedings rather than default resolution. In many instances, Schedule A is now used to identify and disrupt infringing networks, followed by targeted single-defendant or small-group actions once jurisdictional and factual records are developed.7

Impact On Rights Holders
For rights holders, this evolution carries important strategic implications. Schedule A remains a powerful tool, but only when deployed with discipline. Effective enforcement now requires a willingness to litigate preliminary injunctions, defend joinder, and sustain cases beyond the TRO stage. It also requires candid assessment of venue, defendant selection, and evidentiary support at the outset, rather than reliance on procedural momentum alone.

For law firms advising in this space, the shift rewards experience and credibility. Practices built solely around speed and scale face increasing risk in a judicial environment that prioritizes precision and procedural rigor. Firms prepared to litigate contested cases, however, are well positioned to guide clients through the next phase of online IP enforcement.

Conclusion
Looking ahead, Schedule A litigation is unlikely to disappear. Courts continue to recognize the challenges posed by diffuse online infringement, and some form of coordinated enforcement will remain necessary.8 What has ended is the era in which Schedule A functioned as a largely uncontested, high-volume mechanism centered in a single district. Even if the Northern District of Illinois eventually lifts its stay, any revival will occur within narrower boundaries and under sustained judicial scrutiny.

For rights holders considering their enforcement options today, the lesson is clear. Schedule A still works—but only when treated as litigation, not leverage.

Sources

1. 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.
2. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
3. See id.
4. See A. Newell, Roadblock or Speedbump for Schedule A Doe Cases in the Northern District of Illinois?, CHICAGO IP LITIG. BLOG (June 2025), https://www.chicagoiplitigation.com/2025/06/roadblock-or-a-speedbump-for-schedule-a-doe-case-in-the-northern-district-of-illinois/.
5. 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.
6. 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/.
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/.
8. See NYSBA Intellectual Property Law Section, The Need for Reform in Schedule A E-Commerce Lawsuits (2024), https://nysba.org/the-need-for-reform-in-schedule-a-e-commerce-lawsuits/.