New Article Alert: “SAD Scheme Standing Orders”
I have posted a new essay entitled “SAD Scheme Standing Orders,” forthcoming later this year in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.
This essay discusses judicial standing orders regarding the SAD Scheme, which only started emerging about a year ago. Like all other aspects of the SAD Scheme, the proliferation of these standing orders flies under the radar because they are difficult to track. (I know it sounds weird that judges’ orders are not readily trackable; the essay discusses this). Even if you have been paying close attention to the SAD Scheme, you probably will be surprised by what I found.
Also, when I started the project, I expected to find an extensive civil procedure academic discussion about judicial standing orders. I didn’t. As a result, I think this essay adds to the academic discourse about the proper scope and limits of judicial standing orders.
The essay abstract:
The SAD Scheme is an abusive form of intellectual property enforcement that has quietly emerged as a significant part of current intellectual property practice. In response, a number of judges have recently adopted standing orders to regulate SAD Scheme practice in their courtrooms. This essay takes a snapshot of these standing orders and considers their appropriateness. It’s encouraging to see judges take steps to curb the SAD Scheme, but such efforts should embody the best practices of due process.
Note: The essay draft includes the Paul McCartney meme. I’m curious if the student editors will let it be or say that I have to hide the meme away.
Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme
- Greer Burns Law Firm Sanctioned for “Willfully Abusive” and “Egregious” SAD Scheme Judge-Shopping
- Schedule A: Ten Notable Developments in 2025 (Guest Blog Post)
- Second Circuit Rejects Email Service on Chinese Defendants in Baby Shark SAD Scheme Case
- 11th Circuit Sidesteps the SAD Scheme’s Problems–Ain Jeem v. Schedule A
- Another Shill Article Tries to Normalize the SAD Scheme
- Court Sanctions Plaintiff’s Lawyer for Unverified Claims That the Defendant Was Hiding–Guangzhou Youlan Technology Co. Ltd. v. Onbrill World
- SAD Scheme Cases Are a Cesspool of IP Owner Overreaches–Nike v. Quanzhou Yiyi Shoe Industry
- District of New Jersey Adopts SAD Scheme Standing Order
- Court “Sanctions” SAD Scheme Judge Shopping—Crimpit v. Schedule A Defendants
- Chicago-Kent SAD Scheme Symposium TOMORROW
- 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