Schedule A Lawsuits Against Cross-Border Sellers in 2026: Why TROs, Asset Freezes, and Jurisdiction Challenges Are Getting Harder

So-called Schedule A litigation, that is, mass lawsuits against cross-border sellers, usually refers to intellectual property rights holders suing dozens or even hundreds of online sellers in one case, listing the defendants in Schedule A, and combining this with sealed complaints, ex parte temporary restraining orders without notice to the defendants, asset freezes, electronic service circumventing the Hague Convention, and assistance and alternative service through platforms/payment institutions. In Price v. Schedule A Defendants, the Middle District of Florida gave a fairly clear summary of this model: such cases often identify defendants through sealed lists and seek injunctions, asset freezes, and evidentiary discovery from platforms/financial institutions against a large number of online sellers in a centralized manner.

The core trend in 2026 is not that courts are completely rejecting Schedule A, but that courts are requiring it to return to the basic constraints of ordinary civil litigation: personal jurisdiction must be supported by evidence of specific sales or targeting of the local market; suing multiple defendants in one case requires proof that there is a real connection or common factual basis among them; applications for temporary injunctions and asset freezes cannot rely solely on generalized allegations, but must submit specific materials sufficient to prove urgency, likelihood of infringement, and the necessity of freezing assets; and the scope of relief granted by courts should also match the rights and possible harm that have been proven.

I. The Biggest Turning Point: The Seventh Circuit Requires Real Evidence of Sales Within the Jurisdiction

The most important case in 2026 is Yinnv Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074, 7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026. In that case, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the Northern District of Illinois, but the Seventh Circuit held that the record contained no evidence showing that the defendant had actually completed sales to Illinois residents. Screenshots of the website only showed that the goods “could” be shipped to Chicago, which is not the same as an actual sale occurring within the jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit therefore vacated the default judgment and instructed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

This has a major impact on Schedule A practice nationwide, especially in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Gettleman subsequently issued a Schedule A standing order expressly requiring plaintiffs, within two weeks after filing, to submit a memorandum of no more than 10 pages explaining why joinder of the defendants complies with Rule 20 and why the court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant. The order also specifically cites Liu v. Monthly, emphasizing the distinction between “an accessible website plus completed sales within the jurisdiction” and “merely accessible and capable of delivery.”

This means that, after 2026, if plaintiffs merely submit shopping cart screenshots, checkout pages, and deliverable addresses, the risk will increase significantly. A more prudent approach is to complete the purchase of infringing samples, preserve orders, logistics records, delivery records, and payment records, and match the evidence by name to each defendant.

II. Joinder of Defendants Is Moving from “Same IP” Toward “Same Core of Facts”

The second trend is that courts are no longer accepting the broad logic that “everyone infringed the same trademark/copyright, so they can be sued together.” The Price case is a representative case in 2026. The Middle District of Florida pointed out that the plaintiff could not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 20 merely because multiple sellers sold similar products, used similar images, or existed within the same platform ecosystem. The plaintiff had to prove that these defendants’ conduct was based on the same set of key factual foundations, rather than merely infringing the same intellectual property right. The case ultimately dismissed all defendants except one.

The Northern District of Illinois had already reflected the same direction at the end of 2025 in Fendi S.R.L. v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A. Although that case was not a 2026 decision, it has direct background significance for the 2026 trend: the court sua sponte dismissed Fendi’s complaint, for reasons including failure to sufficiently prove that the defendants intentionally exploited the Illinois market and failure to prove that the conduct of multiple defendants arose from the same transaction, same occurrence, or a series of related transactions or occurrences.

Therefore, in 2026, what Schedule A plaintiffs need to prepare is no longer merely “a list of defendants,” but rather a “grouping logic”: common operators, the same supply chain, the same store-cluster control, the same payment-receiving account, common page templates, common shipping information, common customer service, or other evidence sufficient to show a real connection among the defendants.

III. Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) No Longer Pass Automatically Because of the “Counterfeiter” Label

Emoji Co. GmbH v. Schedule A Defendants, 2026 WL 594186 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026), from the Southern District of New York, is another important signal. The plaintiff applied for an ex parte TRO, alleging that the defendants were counterfeiters. The court did not accept the shortcut that “because it is counterfeit, confusion is of course established.” Instead, the court pointed out that the plaintiff still needed to prove likelihood of confusion. The court found that the plaintiff had provided almost no argument or evidence showing that its products and the defendants’ products were substantially identical or directly competitive, and had not analyzed the Polaroid likelihood-of-confusion factors. The court therefore denied the TRO and required the plaintiff to explain why the other 125 defendants, other than the first defendant, should not be dismissed for improper joinder.

Also in the Southern District of New York, Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants, No. 1:26-cv-03253, was filed on April 21, 2026. In its April 27 order, the court denied the plaintiff’s ex parte TRO and also required service issues to be addressed before proceeding to the preliminary injunction stage. However, the court also allowed certain expedited financial discovery from institutions such as Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, PingPong, Coinbase, and eBay.

This contrast is important: courts are not preventing rights holders from enforcing their rights, but are distinguishing “freezing assets, injunctions, and blocking accounts” from “evidentiary discovery, identifying defendants, and preserving evidence.” The 2026 trend is that courts are more willing to first grant limited evidentiary discovery, rather than directly freezing all assets in a situation without notice and without participation by the defendants.

IV. Asset Freezes Are Being Required to Be “Proportional” and “Traceable”

Asset freezes are the most leveraged tool in Schedule A litigation, and they are also becoming a key subject of judicial scrutiny. In the Price case, the plaintiff sought to freeze all funds in all financial accounts of all defendants and required platforms and financial institutions to execute the freeze. The Middle District of Florida held that the plaintiff had not explained why such a broad freeze was necessary for each defendant, nor had it provided defendant-specific evidence to support such a full freeze. The court also pointed out that, in this type of case, asset freezes are often used as settlement leverage and are not necessarily truly used to preserve future equitable relief.

The Northern District of Illinois’s late-2025 case Innovation Industries, LLC v. Partnerships Identified on Schedule A demonstrated another, more acceptable path: the court did not completely dissolve the preliminary injunction, but adjusted the asset restraint to a specific amount corresponding to the defendant’s gross profits from sales of the accused image products, rather than maintaining an undifferentiated broad freeze.

This represents a more mature framework for reviewing asset freezes: if the plaintiff claims that freezing assets is intended to preserve evidence of the defendant’s unjust enrichment or to return illegal proceeds, it should explain how the frozen amount corresponds to the sales, profits, or returnable proceeds at issue. For defendants, the most effective points of attack are precisely that the freeze is overbroad, that it fails to distinguish lawful sales from accused sales, that it fails to prove a risk of asset transfer, and that the frozen amount exceeds the potential equitable relief.

V. The Risks of Wrongful TROs and Bonds Are Beginning to Become Visible

Shenzhen Langmi Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25-cv-1966 (N.D. Ill.), may serve as an observation case regarding TRO bonds and the risk of wrongful injunctions in Schedule A cases. Public court documents show that Langmi filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in 2025 against multiple Schedule A defendants and applied for an ex parte temporary restraining order; the court granted the TRO on July 2, 2025. Subsequent proceedings in 2026 concerning the TRO bond and compensation for defendants show that disputes in such cases do not end with whether the temporary injunction was issued, but may extend to issues of damages compensation after the injunction is lifted, the case is dismissed, or the defendants successfully defend.

This case suggests that Schedule A plaintiffs should carefully evaluate the scope of the freeze, the bond amount, and the possible losses of defendants when applying for a TRO. Defendants, in turn, should preserve evidence as early as possible of account freezes, platform restrictions, lost orders, inventory backlog, operational disruption, attorney’s fees, and other losses, so that a complete record can be formed when claiming damages for a wrongful injunction.

VI. Courts Are Using Standing Orders to Systematically Manage Schedule A Cases

The trend in 2026 is not an occasional tightening by individual judges, but rather multiple courts beginning to use standing orders for systematic management. Standing Order 2025-04 of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey expressly recognizes the increase in Schedule A cases and points out that such cases are unusually changing ordinary procedural rules. The order requires that, to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 20, each complaint should in principle include only one defendant or a group of defendants controlled by the same operator, and emphasizes that personal jurisdiction will be a defendant-by-defendant analysis.

The Schedule A standing order of the Western District of Pennsylvania takes a similar approach. The order recognizes that online counterfeit sales are a real problem, but at the same time points out that in Schedule A cases there are frequent phenomena such as requests for alternative service by email without traditional service attempts, ex parte applications to freeze all assets, and distortions of joinder and personal-jurisdiction rules. The court is particularly concerned with how these exceptional rules are used to create settlement leverage.

This shows that scrutiny of Schedule A is becoming nationalized. In the past, many plaintiffs regarded the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida, and other districts as efficient venues for mass enforcement. By 2026, signals from New York, the Middle District of Florida, New Jersey, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Seventh Circuit are all pointing in the same direction: courts will recognize the enforcement difficulties posed by infringement in cross-border e-commerce, but they will not automatically abandon procedural protections.

VII. The Practical Landscape in 2026: How Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Platforms Should Each Respond

For plaintiffs, the keyword in 2026 is defendant-specific proof. Before filing suit, plaintiffs should complete evidence of sales within the jurisdiction, clues about defendant identity, links between stores and payment-receiving accounts, evidence of the same controlling person, item-by-item comparisons of accused products, urgency facts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65 regarding injunctions, and due diligence regarding service addresses. Especially in cases involving foreign defendants, Judge Gettleman’s order already requires plaintiffs, before applying for default judgment, to explain whether the defendants’ addresses are known and, if unknown, what efforts the plaintiff made to locate the addresses.

For defendants, the focus of defense in 2026 is clearer: first, challenge personal jurisdiction, especially in cases where no completed sales within the jurisdiction occurred; second, challenge improper joinder of defendants and request that defendants be severed into separate cases or that other defendants be dismissed; third, challenge Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65 concerning injunctions, including no-notice TROs, lack of specific emergency facts, and insufficient attorney certification; fourth, challenge the scope of asset freezes and request that they be narrowed to accused sales or provable equitable relief; fifth, preserve the issue of bond compensation in the event of a wrongful TRO.

For platforms and payment institutions, courts may still allow expedited evidentiary discovery concerning identity, contact information, account balances, sales records, and similar information, but they may not necessarily order a comprehensive freeze at the outset. The treatment in the Milwaukee Electric Tool case is representative: the TRO was denied, but specific financial discovery was allowed. This path of “evidentiary discovery allowed, freezes strictly reviewed” is very likely to become a compromise approach adopted by more courts.

Conclusion: The Golden Age of Schedule A Lawsuits Against Cross-Border Sellers Is Becoming an Era of Evidence

In 2026, the main thread of U.S. Schedule A litigation can be summarized in one sentence: mass litigation still exists, but templated, presumption-based, all-defendant freeze practices are losing their safety.

True brand anti-counterfeiting cases can still obtain effective relief. But plaintiffs must prove why each defendant is before that court, why the defendants may be joined, why no-notice relief is necessary, and why the amount of the asset freeze is reasonable. Conversely, once defendants appear, courts are increasingly willing to seriously hear procedural defenses. The Seventh Circuit’s Yinnv Liu v. Monthly, the Middle District of Florida’s Price case, the Southern District of New York’s Emoji Co. case and Milwaukee Electric Tool case, together with standing orders from New Jersey, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Northern District of Illinois, have jointly outlined the national trend in 2026: Schedule A litigation is moving from “efficiency first” toward “evidence first, procedure first, and proportional relief first.”

One case that still requires continued observation is Louis Poulsen A/S v. Lightzey, No. 25-2048. Oral argument in the Seventh Circuit appeal was scheduled for February 20, 2026, and third-party amici participated by providing opinions. It is not a decided 2026 substantive rule, but it may affect later discussions regarding Schedule A fairness, fees, and procedural constraints. This is because it pushes Schedule A disputes from the stage of “temporary restraining orders/asset freezes/joinder of defendants/personal jurisdiction” into another stage: if a plaintiff wrongly drags a defendant into mass litigation, or if serious problems arise regarding evidence, jurisdiction, or identification of defendants, can the defendant recover attorney’s fees? If the Seventh Circuit ultimately supports defendant Lightzey, it may significantly increase the pre-filing due diligence pressure on Schedule A plaintiffs. If it affirms the district court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees to the defendant, then it will show that even if a Schedule A plaintiff withdraws a particular defendant, the defendant will still face a relatively high threshold to obtain attorney’s fees.

(Disclaimer: The information published herein is for reference only and should not be regarded as legal authority or advice on any subject. All rights reserved. Reproduction requires permission from Allbelief Law Firm.)

---

Bill Deng

bdeng@allbelief.com

Managing Partner, U.S. Attorney and Registered Patent Attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Mr. Deng focuses his practice on U.S. intellectual property dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patent, trademark, and copyright matters, as well as Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission and intellectual property litigation and defense involving cross-border e-commerce. His professional admissions cover multiple key institutions and procedures involved in U.S. intellectual property disputes, including the District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

As a USPTO-registered patent attorney and a practitioner admitted before the U.S. International Trade Commission and multiple federal courts, Mr. Deng is well positioned to provide clients with comprehensive, strategically coordinated legal support across patent validity proceedings, Section 337 investigations, and federal litigation.

For brand owners, rights holders, and Chinese sellers alike, whether in enforcement litigation, infringement defense, or settlement negotiations, Mr. Deng communicates directly with both sides in Mandarin and English. In the complex, high-pressure, and fast-moving environment of cross-border e-commerce intellectual property disputes, he assists clients in identifying risks more efficiently, formulating effective strategies, and advancing implementation.

Allbelief Law Firm

Based in Washington, D.C., Serving at the Frontline of Cross-Border Intellectual Property Disputes

Allbelief Law Firm focuses on U.S. intellectual property and cross-border dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patents, trademarks, copyrights, Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission, cross-border e-commerce infringement litigation, anti-counterfeiting enforcement, and related dispute matters. The firm is located in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, in close proximity to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and USPTO. This geographic advantage enables the firm to engage more efficiently with federal judicial and administrative institutions.