Schedule A Patent Litigation in the Southern District of Florida: ToLife Technologies v. Schedule A Defendants

When a Frozen Amazon Account Is the First Notice of a Lawsuit

For many online sellers, the first sign of a patent or trademark lawsuit isn't a summons—it's a frozen Amazon, eBay, or Etsy account and a locked bank account holding their sales proceeds. This is the world of "Schedule A" litigation, a fast-growing category of intellectual property enforcement in which a rights holder sues dozens or even hundreds of anonymous online sellers in a single case, often obtaining an emergency freeze on their marketplace accounts before any defendant knows a suit exists. A recent Southern District of Florida case, ToLife Technologies Pty Ltd and Moshe Maor v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, shows both how these cases play out and what can happen to a seller who doesn't respond. This post explains how Schedule A litigation works, what happened in the ToLife Technologies case, and what an accused seller should do if it happens to them.

How Schedule A Cases Work

A Schedule A case starts differently from ordinary litigation. Rather than naming each defendant individually in the caption, the plaintiff files against "The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A"—a sealed list, often containing dozens or hundreds of online seller accounts, that is not immediately made public. The plaintiff typically moves, on an ex parte basis (meaning without notice to the defendants), for a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' marketplace seller accounts and any associated bank or payment-processor funds. Courts that grant these motions often do so the same day the case is filed, and the online marketplace is then ordered to suspend the accused seller's ability to operate, withdraw funds, or in some cases even to sell non-infringing products, until the matter is resolved.

This structure has drawn significant criticism. Because dozens of unrelated sellers are joined in a single suit based on nothing more than allegedly selling similar accused products through the same marketplace, courts and commentators have questioned whether that satisfies the "same transaction or occurrence" requirement for proper joinder under the Federal Rules. The sealed nature of the defendant list also means an accused seller frequently has no advance opportunity to contest the freeze, and personal jurisdiction is often asserted in generic, boilerplate terms rather than through seller-specific facts. Critics have also pointed to cases where broad, questionable infringement theories were used to freeze substantial seller funds and pressure quick settlements. At the same time, the underlying problem the rights holder is often trying to solve—counterfeit and infringing goods sold by hard-to-locate, frequently overseas sellers—is a real one, which is part of why courts continue to grant this relief despite the criticism.

The ToLife Technologies Case

ToLife Technologies Pty Ltd and its principal, Moshe Maor, sued a Schedule A group of anonymous online sellers in the Southern District of Florida over their "V-COMB" lice comb products, asserting both U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,993,261 (the V-COMB trademark) and U.S. Design Patent No. D858,877 (covering the ornamental design of the comb itself). Among the defendants was an Amazon seller operating under seller ID A2444FN4WJOFA, doing business as "PAATM SHIVA," which the plaintiffs alleged was advertising and selling counterfeit V-COMB combs embodying their patented design and bearing their trademark.

That seller never appeared in the case despite being properly served, and the plaintiffs moved for final default judgment. On November 28, 2025, Judge Raag Singhal granted that motion, finding the well-pleaded allegations sufficient to establish both trademark counterfeiting and design patent infringement in the absence of any opposition. The court awarded $200,000 in statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), $250 in statutory damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for 106 defendants to actual gross profits for 24 defendants, entered a permanent injunction barring further use of the mark and design, and directed that restrained funds held by financial institutions be transferred toward satisfying the judgment. The stark gap between the $200,000 trademark counterfeiting award and the comparatively modest $250 design patent award illustrates why Schedule A plaintiffs frequently lead with counterfeiting claims when a registered trademark is available—but a defaulting defendant faces both exposures at once, plus a permanent injunction, regardless of which claim drives the bulk of the damages.

Five Recommendations for Alleged Infringers:

1. Never ignore a frozen account or a notice from your marketplace. The ToLife Technologies default judgment happened because the accused seller never appeared, despite being properly served—silence essentially guarantees a judgment against you and forfeits any defense you might have had, including defenses that could have significantly reduced or eliminated liability.
2. Move quickly to determine how you were served and whether service was proper. Because Schedule A defendants are often served electronically or through alternative means, confirm that service actually complied with the court's order and applicable rules before assuming the case is unwinnable.
3. Evaluate whether joinder and personal jurisdiction are actually proper. Courts and commentators have increasingly questioned whether unrelated sellers, joined only because they sell similar products on the same marketplace, satisfy the requirements for joinder in a single suit, and whether generic jurisdictional allegations meet the seller-specific showing personal jurisdiction requires—both can be strong bases to sever out of the case or challenge it outright.
4. Get your product design or use of the mark reviewed before assuming infringement. Not every accused product actually falls within a design patent's protected ornamental features or a trademark's protected use; an early, honest technical and legal comparison can reveal a legitimate non-infringement or fair use position worth asserting rather than settling reflexively.
5. Act before a default judgment, not after. Once a default judgment like the one in ToLife Technologies is entered, reopening it requires meeting a demanding legal standard The leverage, the available defenses, and the ability to negotiate a release of frozen funds are all far greater if you engage counsel and respond while the case is still active.

Don't Let a Frozen Account Decide Your Case for You

Schedule A litigation moves fast and hits hard, freezing an accused seller's ability to operate before they've had any real chance to respond. ToLife Technologies v. Schedule A Defendants shows exactly how costly it is to let that moment pass without acting—a $200,000 judgment, a design patent damages award, and a permanent injunction, all entered without the seller ever appearing.

If your marketplace account or funds have been frozen in a Schedule A case, or you're a rights holder considering this kind of enforcement action, contact Florida IP Attorney at RThornburg@AllenDyer.com.