'Schedule A' Cases: A Powerful Tool for Enforcing Design Patents
This article takes a closer look at such cases in the Northern District of Illinois, the preferred venue for the increasingly popular Schedule A design patent cases.
May 15, 2023 at 12:20 PM
7 minute read
Special Sections"Schedule A" cases get their name from the fact that the defendants are identified in a "Schedule A," rather than on the cover or in the body of the complaint. In increasingly popular Schedule A design patent cases, the Schedule A is filed under seal. As a result, defendants are not initially aware that a lawsuit has been filed against them, which is the intention. The plaintiff then files an ex parte motion for entry of a sealed Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to enjoin the offer for sale and sale of the allegedly infringing products. Assuming plaintiff's motion is granted—which routinely occurs because the defendants are not provided the opportunity to oppose—the plaintiff then provides the TRO to online marketplaces, who then close the relevant product listings and institute an asset freeze before defendants learn about the proceedings against them. Such cases, therefore, provide plaintiffs with a powerful and relatively quick tool for enforcing design patents against sellers—in particular, foreign sellers—that sell products on popular online marketplaces. This article takes a closer look at such cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the preferred venue for the increasingly popular Schedule A design patent cases.
Schedule A Complaint. The most important distinction between typical design patent complaints and Schedule A complaints is that Schedule A complaints are written in a manner intended to prevent the defendants from learning about the proceedings prior to the execution of the TRO. Thus, as noted above, the complaint does not publicly identify the defendants. Rather, the complaint identifies the defendants as, for example, "The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A," which the plaintiff seeks to file under seal. Even when the Schedule A is filed under seal, the list of defendants also generally does not specifically identify the true names of the defendants, as the identities may not be readily ascertainable. In such cases, defendants are identified by their seller aliases on the respective online marketplaces.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 2Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 3'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 4Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 5Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250