New Article Alert: “SAD Scheme Standing Orders”

Key Takeaways

• Judges issue standing orders targeting SAD Scheme practices
• Essay provides first systematic snapshot of these orders
• Standing orders aim to enforce due‑process safeguards
• Academic discourse on SAD Scheme remains scarce
• Lawyers must monitor court orders for compliance risks

Summary

Eric Goldman announced a forthcoming Chicago‑Kent Law Review essay titled “SAD Scheme Standing Orders.” The piece surveys the emerging wave of judicial standing orders aimed at curbing the abusive Schedule A (SAD) IP enforcement scheme that has proliferated over the past year. Goldman notes that these orders are hard to track and that scholarly analysis of them is virtually nonexistent. The essay evaluates the appropriateness of the orders and argues they should embody robust due‑process protections.

Pulse Analysis

The SAD Scheme—often labeled Schedule A—has become a controversial tool in intellectual‑property litigation, allowing plaintiffs to pursue aggressive, sometimes abusive, claims across multiple jurisdictions. Originating roughly a year ago, the scheme leverages vague statutory language to secure injunctions, asset freezes, and costly settlements, unsettling defendants ranging from small e‑commerce sellers to multinational brands. Its rapid adoption has strained traditional IP enforcement norms and raised alarms about overreach, prompting scholars and practitioners to call for clearer legal boundaries.

In response, a handful of federal judges have begun issuing standing orders that expressly regulate how SAD Scheme cases are handled in their courts. These orders, though scattered and difficult to aggregate, typically require heightened pleading standards, stricter evidentiary thresholds, and explicit due‑process safeguards before granting sweeping remedies. By imposing procedural guardrails, the judiciary aims to deter frivolous filings and protect defendants from disproportionate harm. However, the opacity of these orders—often buried in local docket notes—makes systematic tracking a challenge, underscoring the need for centralized reporting mechanisms.

Goldman’s upcoming essay fills a critical gap by cataloguing existing standing orders and assessing their legal soundness. The analysis offers practitioners a roadmap for navigating jurisdictions that have embraced these safeguards, while urging courts to adopt best‑practice due‑process frameworks. For IP litigators, the piece signals a shift toward greater judicial scrutiny of SAD Scheme tactics, potentially reshaping settlement dynamics and encouraging more disciplined case management. As the discourse evolves, stakeholders will watch whether these orders coalesce into a cohesive national standard or remain a patchwork of localized reforms.