Also: The issue is not that "injunction restraints" are "impeding" these cases.

The issue is that #ScheduleA plaintiffs are asking for remedies that they are not entitled to.

This week in #ScheduleA:

- Wood v. Eiazuiks, No. 25-02340 (3d Cir.), has been calendared for argument on Friday, 5/15, in Philadelphia.

- The appellees have filed their brief in PROMIER PRODUCTS INC. v. GEAROZ (3d Cir.)

- New appeal: Zhang v. Schedule A, No. 26-01539 (Fed. Cir. Mar 19, 2026).

In this piece, I identify and analyze two new forms of judge shopping I've observed in #ScheduleA cases in the Northern District of Illinois. I analogize these tactics to certain forms of cheating at roulette—namely, “pinching” and “pressing” bets.

This new #ScheduleNay litigation model (working title) puts a lot of pressure on the rules and norms around fair notice.

In both these cases and #ScheduleA cases, the judges often approve alternative service of process. Namely, service by email to whatever address is on file with the platforms.

If only for my own shorthand/convenience, I need to come up with a name for this new litigation format Deckers is using. It's not #ScheduleA litigation; there's no separate defendant list and they don't do the cash grab until after the defendants default. But the targets & justifications are similar

So this decision isn't about #ScheduleA but this part seems relevant:

In our case, Ascendis had waited more than 30 days to request a stay – it then voluntarily dismissed its DJ action without prejudice and immediately refiled a nearly identical complaint the same day for the express purposes of resetting the clock. Apparently Ascendis realized the DJ action created a problem: once the FDA approved the drug, BioMarin could use the pending district court case as a vehicle to seek a preliminary injunction. A mandatory stay under § 1659 would protect against that occurrence.

FRCP 41 hijinks, not #ScheduleA edition (via @denniscrouch.bsky.social):

patentlyo.com/patent/2026/...

images from complaint showing some views of the claimed design next to an "exemplary infringing product"

Hey, look, a #ScheduleA case with pictures! Unfortunately for this defendant, this accused product does not infringe this design patent. Not even close.

Ma v. Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-21949 (S.D. Fla. Mar 24, 2026).

More #ScheduleA in the Third (yes, THIRD) Circuit: The appellees have filed their brief in PROMIER PRODUCTS INC. v. GEAROZ et al, Docket No. 2:25-cv-00497 (W.D. Pa. Apr 15, 2025).

#ScheduleA in the Third (yes, THIRD) Circuit: Wood v. Eiazuiks, No. 25-02340 (3d Cir. Jul 21, 2025), has been calendared for argument on Friday, 5/15, in Philadelphia.

During and after the Illinois action, Plaintiff identified additional infringing sellers and additional infringing products sold by certain defendants in the Illinois action. Compared with Illinois, Plaintiff’s counsel also has personal connections with the Southern District of Florida and, as a matter of personal preference, favors litigating in the southern climate during the winter months. Accordingly, for good cause and in good faith, Plaintiff initiated this action in this District against thirty-two Defendants in the initial Complaint and, in the First Amended Complaint, added nine additional Defendants and additional infringing products offered by certain existing Defendants. See Dkt. 24-1, Decl. of Qianwu Yang ¶ 5.

There's a new #ScheduleA appeal in the Federal Circuit: Zhang v. Parties Identified on Schedule A, Docket No. 26-01539 (Fed. Cir. Mar 19, 2026).

In the case below, when questioned about apparent forum-shopping, the plaintiff said (among other things):

Initial claim charts for each Defendant are shown in Exhibit B, which demonstrate that the Infringing Products are substantially identical to the claim of the Asserted Patent and substantially identical to Jian Zeng’s Solar Stair Lamp (such that consumers are likely to be confused), and Defendants’ sale of Infringing Products not only infringes the Asserted Patent but also is likely to confuse the consuming public and erode confidence in the market. Specifically: (a) all Infringing Products are structurally identical to the claimed design in the Asserted Patent and Jian Zeng’s Solar Stair Lamp by having the substantially identical Solar Stair Case Lamp. (b) Any differences between the Infringing Products are merely aesthetic such as the colors; (c) all Defendants are intertwined in a web of infringement such that joinder of Defendants is appropriate under the circumstances

New design patent #ScheduleA case in WDPA: ZENG v. SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS, Docket No. 2:26-cv-00469 (W.D. Pa. Mar 22, 2026). The claim chart is under seal. But this allegation doesn't inspire confidence about the merits.

So, Doniger/Burroughs, plaintiffs' counsel in the "hot, sexy, dangerous boys" copyright case has filed dozens of #ScheduleA cases.

Including Dolls Kill. 2025 WL 3033729, at *1 (7th Cir. Oct. 30, 2025).

For more on these types of cases, see Eicher Motors, 794 F. Supp. 3d 543 (N.D. Ill. 2025).

If you're not familiar with #ScheduleA cases, see Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Schedule A, 794 F. Supp. 3d 543 (N.D. Ill. 2025).

So, Doniger/Burroughs, plaintiffs' counsel in the "hot, sexy, dangerous boys" copyright case has also filed dozens of #ScheduleA cases.

Including Dolls Kill. See Dolls Kill, Inc. v. MengEryt, No. 24-2841, 2025 WL 3033729, at *1 (7th Cir. Oct. 30, 2025).

The move he describes here is what I refer to, in my current work in progress as "defendant pinching." I argue that it's a form of judge shopping that lets plaintiffs avoid adverse judgments by judges who, like Seeger, have expressed doubts about the #ScheduleA litigation model:

At the end of his final judgment order, Judge Seeger stated: The Court declines the request to award profits because Plaintiff offered evidence of revenue, not profits. Revenue and profits are not the same thing. The Court declines the invitation to assume that all of the revenue equals profits. And while it’s true that revenue and profits are not the same thing, the Lanham Act specifically provides that “[i]n assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant’s sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117. And the Seventh Circuit has previously interpreted that part of § 1117 to mean exactly what it says. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Prods. Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 609 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008) (“WMS has provided evidence of the profits that PartyGaming earned from its U.S. sales. In the absence of evidence from PartyGaming showing that deductions are warranted, WMS is entitled to the revenues supported by its evidence.”). Dyson filed an uncontested appeal and the Seventh Circuit reversed. That part wasn’t particularly notable, given the statutory language and precedent in WMS Gaming. What is interesting is that the Seventh Circuit seemed to go out of its way to note that “[t]he Lanham Act does give district courts the ability to modify an award of profits if the court deems the modification just” and expressly stated that “[o]n remand, if the district court wishes to award more or less than these profits, it retains the discretion to do so, as long as it makes a finding based on the facts of the case.”

Big #ScheduleA news:

Last year, Dyson won an uncontested appeal on a Lanham Act remedies issue. That decision, Dyson v. David 7, made number nine on my wrap-up of the most important Schedule A developments of 2025: blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/202...

David Boies? The one whose firm is representing the Trump Organization in #ScheduleA cases? That one?

two views of the patented design next to one accused product

Judge Kness dismisses design patent infringement claim in a #ScheduleA case: Grill Rescue LLC v. Schedule A, No. 1:23-cv-15984, 2026 WL 483304, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2026).

This would be especially bad considering that over 40% of design patent cases are brought in the #ScheduleA format, which systematically discourages defendant participation.

___
* Note that not all #ScheduleA defendants are foreign. Or counterfeiters.

I didn't have a high-minded reason: I went to law school because I became fascinated with copyright after taking a required undergrad course in Media Law.

But my obsession with IP led eventually led me to where I am now, trying to hold the line on due process (at least, on the #ScheduleA front).

#SimplifiedHomeOfficeDeduction #HomeOfficeExpense #DeductibleHomeOffice #TaxPreparation #TaxPrep #TaxPlanning #LLC #LimitedLiabilityCompany #HomeEquityInterest #Loophole #TaxLoophole #SelfEmployed #ScheduleC #ScheduleA #ScheduleD #ScheduleE #GigWorker #IndependentContractor

By the way, Max'is Creations also files #ScheduleA cases.

The case is part of so-called Schedule A lawsuits largely concentrated in Chicago, in which brands sue dozens and sometimes hundreds of mostly foreign online sellers at once, often securing emergency relief before defendants have a chance to respond. While the litigation strategy has been around for at least 15 years, it has recently drawn more judicial and academic scrutiny, including over concerns about personal jurisdiction theories based on website accessibility and test-shopping screenshots. The defendants in these complaints are not identified in pleadings but rather in sealed "Schedule A" attachments, a term that has become synonymous with the increasingly popular legal strategy. For brand owners, the reason for secrecy is simple: to avoid tipping off suspected counterfeiters — most of whom plaintiffs believe are overseas and particularly in China — that may disappear with their ill-gotten gains before their accounts are frozen. While the Seventh Circuit order did not delve into debate over Schedule A cases, it does signal that plaintiffs will likely need proof of actual forum sales rather than just webpage screenshots to support personal jurisdiction. Read more at: https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/2451121?nl_pk=bc0375a1-be2c-4f24-9761-9f6fdab63324&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip&utm_content=2026-03-11&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2?copied=1

I appreciate that @law360.bsky.social added this context to its story about the Liu v. Monthly decision. This isn't just a regular IP case, it's a #ScheduleA case. That matters.

www.law360.com/ip/articles/...

#SimplifiedHomeOfficeDeduction #HomeOfficeExpense #DeductibleHomeOffice #TaxPreparation #TaxPrep #TaxPlanning #LLC #LimitedLiabilityCompany #HomeEquityInterest #Loophole #TaxLoophole #SelfEmployed #ScheduleC #ScheduleA #ScheduleD #ScheduleE #GigWorker #IndependentContractor

This is the case where the #ScheduleA plaintiff failed to participate in the appeal.

The Jacki Easlick argument recording is available here, for anyone who is interested. #DesignPatents #ScheduleA

www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argumen...

Plaintiff in New York brings a #ScheduleA case, alleging infringement of a utility patent.

But they call it a "design patent" and base their asset freeze request on that mischaracterization.

Dong Guan Jia Shuan Co. Ltd. v. UsLikeDiy et al, Docket No. 1:25-cv-10228 (S.D.N.Y.)

US11639041B2 - Process for producing anti-gravity balance massage type buffer convection airbag and airbag cushion - Google Patents Disclosed in the present invention are a process for producing an anti-gravity balance massage type buffer convection airbag and an airbag cushion. The production process comprises the steps of prepar...

Judge denies motion to seal in a New York #ScheduleA case: Dong Guan Jia Shuan Co. Ltd. v. UsLikeDiy et al, Docket No. 1:25-cv-10228 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026), ECF 15. I can't see the order so I don't know why. But the now-unsealed complaint alleges infringement of this utility patent: