Schedule-A Example

Here is a new example of a Schedule-A case filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

Dyson Tech. Ltd. v. Persons listed on Schedule A, Docket No. 1:22-cv-05946 (N.D. Ill. Oct 27, 2022).

DysonAnonComplaint.  The list of defendants is apparently in Schedule-A, but that document was filed under seal.  The complaint alleges that the defendants are all counterfeiters who operate in “foreign jurisdictions with lax intellectual property enforcement systems” such as “the People’s Republic of China.” They are selling products in the US via online stores such as eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, and DHgate. The justification for the under-seal filing is similar to that of sealed warrants or sealed indictment in criminal cases.  In particular, the patentee has indicated that it plans to seek a TRO in a way that will preserve evidence:

If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court’s power to grant relief. Once the temporary restraining order has been served on the relevant parties and the requested actions are taken, Dyson will move to unseal these documents.

MotionToSeal.

Dyson’s patent here is U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 and appears to cover its “Airwrap” product.  [$699 on Amazon]. According to RPX, the patentee here has already sued 1,000+ defendants for infringement even before this actions.

5 thoughts on “Schedule-A Example

  1. 4

    Any defendant that’s paying attention, now knows to quickly take whatever steps plaintiff referred to when alleging the need for secrecy, so it is moot mostly with the exception being those not paying attention. Ya know, a guy could really clean up with an invention like that.

  2. 3

    The Request for sealing is innocuous. It is clearly limited in scope and timing, and provides compelling rationale for its limited effect.

    That being said, the complaint itself caught my eye for (at least) the following:

    1) “Hair styling products styled after these designs are associated with the quality and innovation that the public has come to expect from Dyson Products.

    2) “Tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it virtually impossible for Dyson to discover Defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their network. If Defendants provide additional credible information regarding their identities, Dyson will take appropriate steps to amend the Complaint.

    3) “According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), most infringing products now come through international mail and express courier services (as opposed to containers) due to increased sales from offshore online infringers. The Counterfeit Silk Road: Impact of Counterfeit Consumer Products Smuggled Into the United States prepared for The Buy Safe America Coalition by John Dunham & Associates (Exhibit 3).

    4) “Third party service providers like those used by Defendants do not adequately subject new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing infringers to “routinely use false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering with these e-commerce platforms.” Exhibit 4, Daniel C.K. Chow, Alibaba, Amazon, and Counterfeiting in the Age of the Internet, 40 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 157, 186 (2020); see also, report on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” prepared by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (Jan. 24, 2020), attached as Exhibit 5…

    Item 4) should be familiar – given Malcolm’s recent SUckpuppetry.

    I would posit though that NOT JUST NDIL is so ‘targeted” (as alleged), but ANYWHERE in the US — vis a vis past venue discussions and the out-of-whack “choice of benefit of doing business in any State versus [currently reduced] risk of suit in any State.

  3. 1

    These things are horrible. I’m sure there are lot of counterfeiters that get swept up here, but many (most) are not. On the TM side, there are countless instances of nominative fair use defenses that never see the light of day. The business model of freezing (illegally and without authority under Rule 65) the defendant’s Amazon store accounts and Pay Pal accounts, forces many meritorious defenses into quick settlement or, worse, simply results in forefeiture as paying a US attorney $25k to defend $20k in a PayPal account isn’t cost justified.

    Full disclosure – I’ve defended numerous Schedule A defendants.

    1. 1.1

      Your complaints vis a vis costs are true of pretty much ALL lawsuits, and “rectification” of that should not be aimed at IP specific matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture