SAD Scheme Defendant Gets Damages Payout from the Bond–Bright Head v. Schedule A Defendants
[This is a ruling from a month ago…I just learned about it.] The court starts out: “Plaintiff’s pursuit of a preliminary injunction in this “Schedule A” patent infringement suit fizzled out after plaintiff abandoned its appeal of my order denying…
Judge Shopping & Schedule A (Guest Blog Post)
By guest blogger Sarah Fackrell, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law Plaintiffs are often allowed to choose their own forum. But they’re not supposed to be able to choose their own judge. And yet, in the U.S. District…
Schedule A: Ten Notable Developments in 2025 (Guest Blog Post)
By Sarah Fackrell, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law It’s been a busy year on the Schedule A beat. In reflecting on the year, I’ve put together this quick round-up of ten of the top developments, in (rough)…
Court Sanctions Plaintiff’s Lawyer for Unverified Claims That the Defendant Was Hiding–Guangzhou Youlan Technology Co. Ltd. v. Onbrill World
This is a SAD Scheme-adjacent design patent case against an Amazon merchant. I say “adjacent” because the plaintiff’s lawyer apparently cloned-and-revised SAD Scheme templates but made two major variations: (1) the complaint only names one defendant, not hundreds, and (2)…
SAD Scheme Lawyers Sanctioned for Judge-Shopping–Dongguan Deego v. Schedule A
This ruling involves two SAD Scheme patent cases brought by Dongguan Deego Trading Co., Ltd., represented by the Getech Law LLC law firm. The first action was filed before Judge Tharp in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Tharp rightly…
Comments on Setting Patent Fees Based on Their Value
The Trump administration is floating the idea of tying patent fees to the value of the patent. Details are sketchy right now, and who knows if this is a serious proposal or a one-news-cycle blip. In any case, some comments…
Analyzing the Lululemon v. Costco Dupe Suit (Guest Blog Post)
Guest blog post by Profs. Sarah Fackrell & Alexandra J. Roberts Dupe culture is everywhere. Consumers seek out dupes online, in stores, and on social media, hoping to score less expensive versions of the luxury items they lust after; stores…
Will Judges Become More Skeptical of Joinder in SAD Scheme Cases?–Dongguan Juyuan v. Schedule A
[Like many of you, I am still trying to make sense of the election results. I’ll restart my normal blogging, but I’m having trouble focusing.] This is a design patent SAD Scheme case before Judge Jeremy C. Daniel in the…
Misjoinder Dooms SAD Scheme Patent Case–Wang v. Schedule A Defendants
35 U.S.C. § 299 limits joinder in patent cases to defendants who infringe using “the same accused product or process.” Congress enacted this requirement to restrict patent trolls who were filing lawsuits against defendants who had nothing in common but…
N.D. Cal. Judge Pushes Back on Copyright SAD Scheme Cases–Viral DRM v. YouTube Schedule A Defendants
My SAD Scheme paper provided some data indicating that 88% of SAD Scheme cases involved trademarks, with only 6% each in copyright and patents. So SAD Scheme copyright cases aren’t unheard of, but they are rare. * * * A…