Named in a Schedule A Lawsuit? Defense for Online Sellers, and Enforcement for Brand Owners
Last updated October 20, 2026
Schedule A cases are federal lawsuits that name dozens or hundreds of online sellers at once, usually in the Northern District of Illinois, and ask the court to freeze their marketplace and payment accounts before they can respond. Jonathan Phillips has litigated these cases on both sides: for named sellers, and for brand owners enforcing trademark, copyright, and design patent rights. Schedule A is one part of a full Illinois IP litigation practice that covers every kind of trademark, copyright, patent, and internet law case; see Northern District of Illinois litigation.
At a glance
Who is sued: Online sellers on Amazon, Walmart, Temu, eBay, and similar marketplaces, named on an attached "Schedule A"
Who sues: Brand and patent owners, through a small group of repeat plaintiff firms
Usual court: Northern District of Illinois, with hundreds of cases a year
What they ask for: A temporary restraining order, an asset freeze, and statutory damages
Your first deadline: The date in the restraining order or the notice from your marketplace; act within days, not weeks
What the statutes allow a plaintiff to ask for [verify each before publishing]:
Counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)): $1,000 to $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods; up to $2,000,000 if willful
Copyright (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)): $750 to $30,000 per work; up to $150,000 if willful
Design patent (35 U.S.C. § 289): the infringer's total profit on the article
Part 1: If you were named as a defendant
How does a Schedule A case work?
The plaintiff files one complaint against many sellers, listing them on Schedule A.
It asks for a temporary restraining order, often before any defendant knows about the case.
The court may order marketplaces and payment processors to freeze the sellers' accounts.
Sellers learn of the case when an account freezes or an email arrives. The plaintiff then asks for a preliminary injunction and offers to settle.
A seller who does nothing risks a default judgment and the loss of the frozen funds.
What defenses work?
No infringement. Does your product actually use the mark, copy the copyrighted image, or look like the patented design? Many Schedule A complaints rest on screenshots and thin comparisons.
Validity and ownership. Is the registration valid and owned by the plaintiff, and is the design patent infringed under the ordinary-observer test?
Joinder. Sellers with different products, listings, and facts are often joined in one complaint. Misjoinder is a recognized challenge in this court.
Personal jurisdiction and venue. A seller with no contacts with Illinois may challenge the court's reach. This turns on the facts of the sales.
Foreign sellers and service. Many defendants are overseas. Service rules, including the Hague Convention, can matter. See service on foreign defendants.
Damages and scope of the freeze. A freeze should be tied to what the seller actually sold. Courts can narrow or release funds.
Settle or fight?
You sold a few units and the product is plainly different: Challenge the claim and the freeze.
You sold the product as alleged, on a small scale: Negotiate early; the aim is releasing the account and a fair number.
You are a foreign seller who was never served: Raise service and jurisdiction before anything else.
Your account is frozen and revenue depends on it: Prioritize unfreezing the account, then the merits.
What to do in the first week
Do not delete listings, account records, or emails; preserve them.
Do not contact the plaintiff's lawyer yet.
Save the restraining order, the marketplace notice, and the case number.
Pull your sales records for the product and the period named.
Talk to counsel before any deadline in the order.
Part 2: If you are a brand owner
Schedule A is a tool for brand owners facing many anonymous online sellers of counterfeit or copied goods. Jonathan files these cases for trademark, copyright, and design patent owners, and advises on when the tool fits and when it does not.
When does a Schedule A case make sense?
You hold a federal trademark registration, a copyright registration, or an issued design patent.
You face many sellers of the same copies, listed on marketplaces you can identify.
Marketplace takedowns have not stopped the problem.
What should a brand owner expect?
Evidence first. Test purchases, screenshots, and clear comparisons to your product matter more than the number of defendants.
Care with who you name. Naming a seller without good evidence invites a motion, a fee request, and bad publicity. The better the evidence, the better the case.
A foreign-defendant plan. Service and collection against overseas sellers need planning before filing.
For the work before a lawsuit, see trademark policing and brand protection, and for plaintiff-side patent cases, design patent enforcement. Both feed directly into court filings in the Northern District of Illinois.
Results
Jonathan has litigated Schedule A cases on both sides, including design patent enforcement for the plaintiff in Kuiper Ventures v. Bedshe and defense of named sellers in other matters. [Add public-docket results, each cleared by the client.] Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Frequently asked questions
My Amazon account was frozen because of a Schedule A case. What now? Do not ignore it. The freeze comes from a court order, and the way to lift it is through the case, by challenging the claim, negotiating, or both.
Do I have to appear in Illinois if I am overseas? Not necessarily. Whether the court has jurisdiction over you depends on your contacts with Illinois and how you were served.
Is paying the settlement the only way out? No. Some claims are weak and some freezes can be narrowed. A short consultation shows which you have.
Do you also represent brand owners? Yes. He represents both named sellers and brand owners in these cases.
What does it cost? Flat fees and payment plans are available for most Schedule A defense matters.
Recent writing
Deckers v. Litfun: Schedule A Default Judgment Unwound — Jonathan L.A. Phillips
Jonathan L.A. Phillips, Brown, Hay & Stephens, LLP. Part of the Serial Plaintiff Tracker and the IP litigation hub. Last reviewed October 2026. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.