“Schedule A litigation is a powerful enforcement tool for brand owners facing widespread online infringement.”
In 2025, trademark cases filed in United States District Courts increased 25% from 2024 (up 848 cases to 4,211). Many of those cases were “Schedule A” lawsuits, a niche form of intellectual property litigation that joins multiple foreign-based ecommerce stores selling counterfeit, pirated, or other infringing products in a single lawsuit. In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs typically include multiple offshore online infringers and seek an asset restraint to prevent them from transferring their ill-gotten gains abroad. This article explores the Schedule A litigation model and provides best practices for intellectual property litigators.
Schedule A Litigation: One Tool in the Toolbox for Online Enforcement
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has reported that “e-commerce platforms, third-party marketplaces, and their supporting intermediaries have also served as powerful stimulants for the trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods.” Enforcement on ecommerce platforms is challenging because, as the DHS and others have observed, very little identifying information is needed to register an account.
Ecommerce platforms generally do not have a duty to proactively monitor the sellers on their platform selling infringing or counterfeit goods. See Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc.600 F.3d 93, 106-110 (2d Cir. 2010). Because “other brand protection measures have historically failed” to stop the trademark infringement and counterfeiting committed by off-shore e-commerce sellers, rights owners have turned to Schedule A litigation to protect their trademark rights.
Best Practices in Schedule A Litigation
Pleadings: Schedule A and Filing Documents Under Seal
Multi-defendant intellectual property infringement cases have become known as Schedule A cases based on how the complaint is drafted. Typically, the complaint names the defendants as individuals and business entities of unknown makeup who own and/or operate one or more of the seller aliases identified on Schedule A. “Schedule A” is attached as an exhibit to the complaint. Because the identity of the individuals or entities that operate or own the online stores is unknown, Schedule A typically identifies each defendant using the name and URL of the ecommerce store selling the infringing products.
If a case pleads multiple types of infringement, e.gtrademark infringement and copyright infringement, Schedule A should identify the type(s) of infringement each defendant is charged with. Schedule A should be enumerated for ease of referencing each defendant. In general, less than 100 defendants should be joined together in a single case, which balances judicial efficiency and practical case management.
After filing the complaint, the plaintiff moves for an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) which typically authorizes an asset restraint and expedited discovery. The plaintiff serves the TRO on the relevant third parties to freeze defendants’ assets and obtain defendants’ email addresses for electronic service of process. Once all the accounts are restrained (typically within 14 days or less), plaintiff serves the defendants, unseals any sealed documents, and identifies the defendants as parties to the case on the docket as soon as practicable. The case then proceeds the same as any other civil suit.
Filing documents under seal should only be used as necessary to prevent defendants from learning about the litigation before the asset restraint is in place. Normally, the documents filed under seal include (1) Schedule A and (2) screenshot evidence, which should be filed with the complaint and in support of plaintiff’s motion for entry of the TRO. Unless a document contains identifying defendant information, it should not be filed under seal. Plaintiff’s name and their intellectual property should not be sealed, redacted, or otherwise hidden in the complaint or in any other pleadings.
Screenshots: Evidencing Infringement and Establishing Personal Jurisdiction and Defendants’ Location Overseas
Screenshots of the defendants’ ecommerce stores are used to evidence infringement, establish personal jurisdiction, and demonstrate defendants are located outside the U.S. As such, screenshots should be of sufficient quality, not blurry or pixelated or require an excessive zoom level to examine. For efficient judicial review, the screenshot exhibit should have a table of contents or index, and each defendant should only have a few pages of screenshots to keep the exhibit reasonable in length.
The screenshot exhibit must identify the intellectual property right(s) infringed either in the index or on the first page of each defendant’s screenshots. The infringement should be clear and evident from the screenshot. The sellers’ use should not fall under the trademark or copyright fair use doctrines. The first screenshot for each defendant should clearly show the alleged infringement. All screenshots should include the applicable defendant’s number, name, and URL as identified on Schedule A.
Screenshots also establish that personal jurisdiction is proper. If the basis is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1), the screenshots must show a transaction with a purchaser in the forum state. In Schedule A cases, personal jurisdiction is typically established by purchasing the infringing or counterfeit product offered for sale by the defendant through their ecommerce store or website to be shipped to the forum state. See NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH46 F.4th 614, 624-25 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that a single sale of an infringing product to Illinois is sufficient to support personal jurisdiction); see Am. Girl, LLC v. Zembrka118 F.4th 271, 278 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2024) (holding that a transaction of a counterfeit product is sufficient to support personal jurisdiction, a shipment is not required).
Usually, this is a screenshot of an order or payment confirmation page that shows a confirmed sale to a shipping address in the forum state. The screenshot may also be an order or payment confirmation email. If plaintiff timely receives the infringing product, photographs of the delivered product may also be included in the screenshot evidence.
In Schedule A cases, defendants are served with notice of process electronically pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3), which allows for service of process of foreign defendants by alternative means not prohibited by international agreement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). As such, screenshots must show that each defendant is located outside of the U.S. Generally, this is a screenshot of the defendant’s contact information or store home page showing their address or country. However, the screenshots could include other evidence, such as a defendant having a China mail service email address (e.gmail.163.com, mail.qq.com).
Electronic Service of Process: Publication and Email
Schedule A plaintiffs serve defendants electronically by publishing the complaint, summons, TRO, screenshot evidence, and other relevant documents on a service website, and by sending an email to the defendants which includes copies of relevant documents and a link to the service website. Even after the defendants have been served, plaintiffs should continue to provide defendants relevant updates of the proceedings for the pendency of the litigation.
The service website must clearly identify the case, list any upcoming deadlines or hearings, provide links of relevant documents to view or download, and include plaintiff’s counsel’s contact information. Emails should include copies of the relevant documents as attachments. If the documents are too large to be sent as attachments, the body of the email should include a link to a shared drive, e.ga downloadable link, and indicate the documents are available through the link. The body of the email must include plaintiff’s counsel’s contact information. If an email is providing notice of an upcoming hearing, the date, time, location and/or call-in number of the hearing should be included in the body of the email.
Court-Specific Procedures
Once a judge is assigned, the assigned judge’s website should be regularly reviewed for any Schedule A-specific procedures, templates, and proposed orders.
Schedule A Litigation Actually Works
Schedule A litigation is a powerful enforcement tool for brand owners facing widespread online infringement. Nearly all rights owners that have filed Schedule A cases observe a significant reduction, if not outright elimination, of online infringements. When applied thoughtfully and in accordance with these best practices, Schedule A cases promote judicial efficiency and effectively enforce trademark rights in today’s modern e?commerce environment.
Additional Resources
Strategic Alliance for Fair Ecommerce, NFP (SAFE) is a bar association which develops and promotes best practices for Schedule A litigation to address the unique challenges of online intellectual property disputes in an ever-evolving ecommerce landscape.