Amicus Brief Urges Seventh Circuit to Award Attorneys’ Fees in SAD Scheme Case–Louis Poulsen v. Lightzey

Prof. Betsy Rosenblatt (Case Law) and I filed an amicus brief supporting the Seventh Circuit appeal of a SAD Scheme defendant. The amicus brief was drafted by Wesley Johnson and the team at Cross-Border Counselor LLP.

Note: We found out about this appeal quite late. If you are defending a SAD Scheme case and your case is appealed, please let me know ASAP so we can try to assemble amicus support with adequate lead time.

The case involved avoidable mistakes that inevitably occur when the standard SAD Scheme cuts due process corners. Despite the plaintiff’s overreaches, the district court denied an attorneys’ fee award, and the defense appealed that denial to the Seventh Circuit. Personally, I think every case where a SAD Scheme plaintiff gets an ex parte TRO based on a factual error should automatically trigger a fee shift (and worse).

I don’t expect the Seventh Circuit to go that far, but the brief explains why a fee shift is necessary here to deter SAD Scheme abuses, especially given how rarely the Seventh Circuit sees SAD Scheme appeals. Even if the Seventh Circuit doesn’t award the fee shift, any (well-deserved) critical remarks about the SAD Scheme from the Seventh Circuit could encourage further judicial skepticism of the cases. #StopTheSADScheme.

Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme

• 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