Chicago-Kent SAD Scheme Symposium TOMORROW

Dear Attendee:

We are contacting you on behalf of The Strategic Alliance for Fair Ecommerce (SAFE) since you are listed as a participant in the upcoming panel event at Chicago-Kent College of Law on September 26th.  The event’s recommended reading list presents only a single viewpoint that portrays Schedule A cases negatively.

SAFE has prepared a Schedule A case Fact vs. Fiction summary that provides accurate information about Schedule A case practice.  The summary includes Schedule A appellate and district court decisions that Chicago Kent has omitted from the recommended reading.  We hope that you will take time to review our Fact vs. Fiction publication so that you are fully educated on Schedule A cases ahead of your panel.

[My comment: I omitted the link to their advocacy. Read the Eicher opinion instead.]

Please let us know if you have any questions.  We look forward to an engaging panel on Friday.

Respectfully,

Amy C. Ziegler
President
SAFE Bar Association

Justin R. Gaudio
Secretary
SAFE Bar Association

Yanling Jiang
Treasurer
SAFE Bar Association

OK, so the “SAFE” group has a problem that the “event’s recommended reading list presents only a single viewpoint.” And yet….in a SAD Scheme ex parte TRO proceeding, the plaintiffs present only their single viewpoint to the judge. Is the SAFE group concerned about that too? Does the SAFE group think that defendants should be given a chance to provide accurate information at TRO proceedings? Given this context, the email senders have a lot of chutzpah and a lack of self-awareness. #StopTheSADScheme.

Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme

• Amicus Brief Urges Seventh Circuit to Award Attorneys’ Fees in SAD Scheme Case–Louis Poulsen v. Lightzey
• Court Rejects Schedule A Claims Against Sellers of Compatible Parts/Accessories (Cross-Post)
• Judge Kness: the SAD Scheme “Should No Longer Be Perpetuated in Its Present Form”–Eicher Motors v. Schedule A Defendants
• SAD Scheme Lawyers Sanctioned for Judge-Shopping–Dongguan Deego v. Schedule A
• Judge Ranjan Cracks Down on SAD Scheme Cases
• Because the SAD Scheme Disregards Due Process, Errors Inevitably Ensue–Modlily v. Funlingo
• SAD Scheme-Style Case Falls Apart When the Defendant Appears in Court—King Spider v. Pandabuy
• Serial Copyright Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Enforce Third-Party Copyrights–Viral DRM v 7News
• Another N.D. Ill. Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Zaful v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Rejects SAD Scheme Joinder–Toyota v. Schedule A Defendants
• Another Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Xie v. Annex A
• Will Judges Become More Skeptical of Joinder in SAD Scheme Cases?–Dongguan Juyuan v. Schedule A
• SAD Scheme Leads to Another Massively Disproportionate Asset Freeze–Powell v. Schedule A
• Misjoinder Dooms SAD Scheme Patent Case–Wang v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Hammers SEC for Lying to Get an Ex Parte TRO–SEC v. Digital Licensing
• Judge Reconsiders SAD Scheme Ruling Against Online Marketplaces–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• N.D. Cal. Judge Pushes Back on Copyright SAD Scheme Cases–Viral DRM v. YouTube Schedule A Defendants
• A Judge Enumerates a SAD Scheme Plaintiff’s Multiple Abuses, But Still Won’t Award Sanctions–Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather v. Schedule A Defendants
• Why Online Marketplaces Don’t Do More to Combat the SAD Scheme–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• SAD Scheme Cases Are Always Troubling–Betty’s Best v. Schedule A Defendants 
• Judge Pushes Back on SAD Scheme Sealing Requests
• Roblox Sanctioned for SAD Scheme Abuse–Roblox v. Schedule A Defendants
• Now Available: the Published Version of My SAD Scheme Article
• In a SAD Scheme Case, Court Rejects Injunction Over “Emoji” Trademark
• Schedule A (SAD Scheme) Plaintiff Sanctioned for “Fraud on the Court”–Xped v. Respect the Look
• My Comments to the USPTO About the SAD Scheme and Anticounterfeiting/Antipiracy Efforts
• My New Article on Abusive “Schedule A” IP Lawsuits Will Likely Leave You Angry
• If the Word “Emoji” is a Protectable Trademark, What Happens Next?–Emoji GmbH v. Schedule A Defendants
• My Declaration Identifying Emoji Co. GmbH as a Possible Trademark Troll