The Predicament and Resolution of Schedule A Cases in the United States

With the rapid expansion of cross-border e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, and Temu, Chinese cross-border sellers have swiftly gained prominence by leveraging the competitive advantages of domestic manufacturing and modern logistics. Through these platforms, they have extended their operations into global markets. As a new engine driving China’s foreign trade and a significant trend in global commerce, cross-border e-commerce has not only contributed to stabilizing trade volume and optimizing trade structures, but also served as a powerful catalyst in establishing new competitive advantages for international economic cooperation.

However, due to differences in legal and judicial systems across jurisdictions—and the monopolistic practices of certain overseas platforms—Chinese cross-border e-commerce sellers often face unfair treatment and financial loss in intellectual property infringement cases brought in countries such as the United States. A thorough analysis of the intellectual property risks and legal challenges encountered by Chinese sellers in the U.S. market, along with the development of viable legal strategies, is critical not only for safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests, but also for fostering the sound and sustainable development of the industry.

1. Overview of Schedule A Cases

In recent years, a large number of Chinese sellers have been significantly affected by mass intellectual property litigation in the United States, a litigation model commonly referred to as “Schedule A” cases. Upon closer examination, these cases typically share the following characteristics:

(1) A single plaintiff sues dozens, or even hundreds, of defendants (the vast majority of whom are Chinese e-commerce sellers) in the same case. The plaintiff usually consolidates the defendant list in a separate document titled “Schedule A,” which is submitted to the court as part of the legal filing—hence the name “Schedule A” cases.

(2) The causes of action in Schedule A cases are generally trademark infringement or copyright infringement, and in some instances, patent infringement.

(3) Following the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff typically seeks a unilateral Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the court against the defendants’ alleged infringing activities. This TRO results in the removal of the accused products and the freezing of the defendants’ accounts on e-commerce platforms—often involving amounts far exceeding the actual sales revenue of the accused products.

(4) The vast majority of Schedule A cases are adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A smaller number of cases are heard in federal courts in Georgia and Florida.

(5) A few law firms frequently act as plaintiff’s counsel in Schedule A cases, including Greer, Burns & Crain; Keith Vogt, Ltd.; Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.; and David Gulbransen, among others.

2. Litigation Process of Schedule A Cases

(1) Filing of the Complaint

In the author’s experience, complaints in Schedule A cases are often overly generalized, lacking detailed allegations of specific infringing acts by each defendant. This generic approach allows plaintiffs to reuse and repurpose a templated complaint across multiple cases with minimal modifications. In many cases handled by the author, the complaints appear nearly identical, suggesting a standardized, non-individualized drafting process.

(2) Submission of the Defendant List and Motion to Seal

Instead of listing all defendants in the body of the complaint, plaintiffs typically submit a consolidated list in a separate Schedule A attachment, which is filed with the court as part of the legal documents.

Simultaneously, the plaintiff usually files a motion for leave to file under seal, requesting the court to temporarily seal the complaint and the defendant list. While under seal, defendants are unaware of the lawsuit, and the complaint remains inaccessible to the public. The main objective of sealing is to prevent defendants from being alerted to the case and transferring funds from their e-commerce accounts. Typically, once the TRO is granted by the court, the complaint and defendant list are unsealed and made public.

(3) Plaintiff's Application for TRO and Expedited Discovery

Almost all plaintiffs in Schedule A cases request the court to issue an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the defendants.

Because TROs are issued without prior notice or a hearing, they are considered an extraordinary form of relief under U.S. law and are usually granted with caution. However, courts hearing Schedule A cases often approve TROs with little scrutiny. As these motions are filed ex parte, defendants are neither notified nor given an opportunity to respond.

In addition, plaintiffs frequently seek expedited discovery, requesting that the court compel defendants to disclose key information, such as seller registration data, sales figures of the accused products, account balances, and consumer reviews.

(4) Platform Enforcement of the TRO

Once a TRO is granted, the plaintiff’s counsel serves the order on both the defendants and the e-commerce platforms. Platforms, in compliance with the TRO, remove the accused listings and freeze all funds in the defendants’ accounts. During the account freeze, sellers are unable to withdraw funds, which severely impacts their cash flow and profitability.

(5) Court Hearings

Between the issuance of the TRO and the formal trial, the court may hold one or more hearings, typically concerning:

(i) Requests for TRO extension or Preliminary Injunction (PI):A TRO is valid for 14 days and may be extended once. After the extension expires, the plaintiff must request a preliminary injunction from the court to maintain the restrictions; otherwise, the TRO will lapse.

(ii) Discovery-related motions and issues

(6) Response and Settlement

Given the lengthy nature of litigation in U.S. courts, extended proceedings can severely exacerbate liquidity challenges for defendant sellers. As a result, most Schedule A cases are ultimately resolved through settlement.

Settlements may take different forms:– Some are negotiated after the defendant actively engages in the litigation process.– Others occur when the defendant does not contest the allegations but instead seeks a direct resolution with the plaintiff.

The decision to respond or not should be based on a careful case-by-case assessment, considering factors such as whether the product genuinely infringes IP rights, whether there was actual sales activity within the relevant U.S. jurisdiction, the amount of frozen funds, and whether the frozen amount substantially exceeds the actual revenue from the accused products.

It is important to note that many Schedule A cases brought against Chinese sellers lack sufficient legal merit. These cases often become strategic bargaining tools, with plaintiffs adjusting their settlement demands depending on the defendant’s posture. Plaintiffs are often more willing to compromise with sellers who speak up and actively defend themselves. Conversely, those with strong legal grounds who opt for silence may face excessive settlement demands.

In the author’s opinion, sellers who refrain from responding out of fear or a desire to avoid conflict often find that this strategy backfires—they not only end up paying substantial settlement fees but may also become repeat targets for similar lawsuits in the future.

Once a settlement is reached and a settlement agreement is signed, the plaintiff typically files a notice of dismissal with the court and issues instructions to the e-commerce platform to lift the freeze on the defendant’s funds.

(7) Court Judgment

In cases where the defendant enters an appearance and responds to the complaint, but the parties fail to reach a settlement, the court will render a judgment after evaluating the plaintiff’s claims, as well as the motions and responses submitted by both parties.

In many Schedule A cases, a significant number of Chinese defendants neither appear in court nor engage in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff. Instead, they choose to ignore the proceedings entirely. In such situations, the plaintiff typically files a motion for default judgment, requesting that the court enter judgment against the non-appearing defendants. Courts often grant these motions, awarding substantial damages and granting injunctive relief largely in favor of the plaintiff, which results in highly adverse outcomes for the defaulting defendants.

3. Defense Strategies in Schedule A Litigation

Upon being served with a Schedule A complaint, sellers must refrain from making any incriminating admissions. It is not uncommon for defendants—without first seeking legal counsel—to submit apology letters to the court or plaintiff, admitting to “accidental infringement” and pleading for leniency. This approach is ill-advised. As the saying goes, “Those who seek peace by compromise find neither peace nor justice.” Schedule A cases are inherently adversarial; passivity or premature admission of liability is tantamount to surrender and places the defendant in an indefensible position.

In fact, there are often viable legal defenses available to the defendant. Common grounds for defense in Schedule A actions include:

(1) Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

In the United States, intellectual property disputes fall under federal jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction of a federal district court may be established through general jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction.

General jurisdiction applies when the defendant is incorporated or has its principal place of business in the forum state. In the absence of such a nexus, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing specific personal jurisdiction.

To assert specific personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state. A key factor in this analysis is whether the defendant has actually shipped allegedly infringing products into the forum state.

In MSM Design and Engineering LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, the court held that "the mere possibility a product could be ordered online and shipped to Illinois is not, by itself, sufficient to form minimum contacts with this forum." Accordingly, if the defendant has not fulfilled any orders to the forum state, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may be warranted.

(2) Failure to Meet the Standards for Issuance of a TRO

To obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), the plaintiff must satisfy four requirements:

1. A likelihood of success on the merits;

2. A showing that, absent the TRO, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm;

3. That the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff;

4. That the TRO is in the public interest.

Each of these elements may be challenged by defense counsel, depending on the specific facts of the case. For example, the defendant may argue that any harm to the plaintiff is compensable by monetary damages, or that the alleged infringement is de minimis and does not warrant extraordinary relief.

(3) Disproportionate Asset Freeze Relative to Sales of Allegedly Infringing Products

As previously discussed, a temporary restraining order (TRO) and its accompanying asset freeze are considered extraordinary remedies. Courts are therefore expected to exercise particular caution in granting such relief.

In AM General Corporation v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the court emphasized that injunctive relief should impose the least possible hardship on the affected parties. Similarly, in Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Lake Shore Asset Management, the court noted that such relief must be narrowly tailored to the alleged violation.

If the amount frozen by the court significantly exceeds the total revenue generated from the allegedly infringing products, the defendant may file a motion to reduce or modify the freeze, arguing that the freeze is excessive and not proportionate to the actual scope of the alleged infringement.

(4) Improper Joinder of Unrelated Defendants

In many Schedule A cases, plaintiffs file mass actions against dozens or even hundreds of unrelated defendants in a single lawsuit. However, this practice often runs afoul of procedural requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 20(a)(2) permits defendants to be joined in one action only if the claims against them arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or a series of related transactions or occurrences, and there is a common question of law or fact.

Where the named defendants operate independently of each other—often selling different products, under separate brands, and without coordination—the joinder is likely procedurally improper. In such cases, defense counsel may move to sever the case or dismiss it on the grounds of misjoinder.

Final Thoughts

As Chinese e-commerce companies continue to expand into global markets, Schedule A litigation in U.S. federal courts poses growing legal challenges. Sellers must adopt a proactive and strategic approach in response to such actions.

On one hand, sellers should strengthen their internal compliance and intellectual property awareness, minimizing the risk of inadvertent infringement. On the other, when facing potentially abusive litigation tactics, sellers should not concede prematurely, but instead engage experienced legal counsel to assert legitimate defenses and protect their legal rights.

Schedule A cases are not merely legal disputes—they are also strategic contests that test a seller's resolve, risk assessment, and ability to navigate foreign litigation. Maintaining composure, acting decisively, and trusting in professional legal support are essential for Chinese sellers to safeguard their interests in the international marketplace.

We remain committed to standing shoulder to shoulder with sellers in defending their lawful rights.