Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

This litigation represents a targeted patent enforcement campaign by an operating company, Zhejiang Ledison Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., a China-based manufacturer of LED lighting products, including decorative and "smart" LED filament bulbs sold under the brand "LEDisong". The defendants are a large, frequently-changing group of third-party sellers on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Temu, who are identified only on a sealed "Schedule A" to the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants are selling LED filament light bulbs that infringe on Ledison's intellectual property. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 11,815,226, which covers a specific technical structure for an LED filament to improve light emission and stability, and U.S. Design Patent No. D1,008,633, which protects the ornamental appearance of an LED lamp. This dual assertion of utility and design patents is a common strategy to attack both the functional and aesthetic aspects of allegedly infringing products.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. This venue is highly notable as the epicenter for "Schedule A" intellectual property litigation, where rights holders sue numerous, often foreign, online sellers in a single action. The court's judiciary is familiar with the plaintiffs' tactics, which involve filing the case under seal and immediately seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to freeze the anonymous defendants' assets held by payment processors. This strategy, employed here by the Chicago-based firm Greer, Burns & Crain, creates powerful leverage by disabling the sellers' businesses and cash flow before they are formally aware of the lawsuit, leading to a high rate of default judgments and settlements. The case is emblematic of a broader, controversial trend where patent and trademark owners use this "Schedule A" model as a rapid, cost-effective alternative to traditional, defendant-by-defendant litigation or ITC actions to combat widespread online infringement.

Legal Developments & Case Status

As of May 14, 2026, the case is in its nascent stages, with the primary developments being procedural and consistent with the established playbook for "Schedule A" patent infringement lawsuits. There have been no substantive rulings on the merits of the infringement claims, nor have any of the typically anonymous defendants appeared.

A chronological summary of key events is detailed below:

• 2026-04-23: Complaint Filed. Hangzhou Yilai Lighting Technology Co Ltd, represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, filed its patent infringement complaint against defendants identified only on a sealed "Schedule A". The complaint and its key exhibits, including the list of defendants and the patents-in-suit, were filed under seal.

• 2026-04-23: Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Concurrent with the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO. This is the cornerstone of the "Schedule A" enforcement strategy. The motion asks the court to immediately, and without prior notice to the defendants, freeze the defendants' assets held by online marketplace platforms (e.g., Amazon, Temu) and financial intermediaries (e.g., PayPal). It also seeks to prevent the defendants from transferring or destroying evidence. These motions are typically supported by declarations showing that the defendants are foreign, operate anonymously, and are likely to move funds and shut down their online stores to evade jurisdiction if given notice.

• 2026-04-24: Motion to Seal. The plaintiff filed a motion to keep the case documents, particularly the complaint, Schedule A, and TRO motion, under seal. The stated purpose is to prevent the defendants from learning of the lawsuit and dissipating their assets before the court can rule on the TRO and the asset freeze can be implemented by the marketplaces.

• 2026-04-27 (Anticipated): Order Granting TRO. (Status not confirmed in search results, but highly probable based on standard practice). In the vast majority of these cases, the Northern District of Illinois grants the ex parte TRO within a few days of filing. The order would typically:

  • Temporarily restrain defendants from further infringement.
  • Order online marketplaces (Amazon, Wish, etc.) and payment processors to freeze all funds and accounts connected to the defendant storefronts.
  • Allow for alternative service of process via email or publication on a website, given the difficulty of formally serving numerous foreign defendants.
  • Set a date for a preliminary injunction hearing, usually within 14 days, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to argue for extending the restraints.

• 2026-05-11: Summons Issued. The clerk of the court formally issued summons for the defendants. In this context, the summons are typically served electronically on the third-party marketplaces and payment platforms, which are then ordered to provide notice to the defendant account holders.

Present Posture & Expected Outcome

The case is proceeding as expected for a high-volume, anti-counterfeiting and patent infringement action. The current focus is on the execution and enforcement of the TRO's asset freeze. The next steps will likely involve:

1. Service of Process: The plaintiff will attempt to perfect service on the defendants using the alternative methods approved in the TRO.
2. Default: A significant majority of the "Schedule A" defendants are not expected to appear or hire counsel to defend themselves. Once the deadline to answer the complaint passes, the plaintiff will move for entries of default and, subsequently, default judgments against the non-appearing defendants.
3. Settlement: Some defendants may contact plaintiff's counsel to negotiate a settlement, which typically involves turning over a portion of the frozen funds in exchange for a dismissal from the lawsuit and the release of their accounts.
4. Preliminary Injunction: The court will likely convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction, extending the asset freezes and sales prohibitions for the duration of the case.

Substantive litigation regarding patent validity, claim construction (Markman hearing), or infringement is highly unlikely. The economic reality for most defendants is that the cost of hiring U.S. patent litigation counsel far exceeds the amount of funds frozen in their accounts, making a default the only viable option.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) dockets reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed against patents assigned to Hangzhou Yilai Lighting Technology Co Ltd. This is typical, as the anonymous and disparate nature of the "Schedule A" defendants makes it nearly impossible for them to coordinate the expensive and complex effort required to launch a PTAB challenge.

Plaintiff Counsel of Record

The plaintiff, Hangzhou Yilai Lighting Technology Co Ltd (doing business as Zhejiang Ledison Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.), is represented by the intellectual property law firm Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. This Chicago-based firm is widely recognized for its high-volume, "Schedule A" anti-counterfeiting and patent enforcement practice, representing brand owners against large numbers of online sellers.

The specific attorneys who have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in this case are:

• Justin R. Gaudio (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Note: Mr. Gaudio is a shareholder at the firm with extensive experience leading online trademark and patent enforcement programs, particularly in "Schedule A" cases that result in seizing counterfeit domains and freezing infringer assets.

• Amy L. Schiller (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Note: While specific details of Ms. Schiller's involvement in this case are not public, attorneys with her role at the firm are typically involved in the strategic management of these high-volume litigation campaigns.

• Alyson J. Ficiura (Associate)

  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Note: As an associate on the firm's anti-counterfeiting team, Ms. Ficiura is typically involved in drafting pleadings, managing discovery with third-party platforms, and handling motion practice in federal court. Her profile indicates experience in all aspects of trademark litigation.

No Defense Counsel of Record

As of May 14, 2026, no attorney has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of any defendant in this case. The defendants, who are identified only on a sealed "Schedule A," are currently unrepresented before the court.

This situation is the norm for this type of high-volume patent litigation targeting numerous online sellers, who are often foreign individuals or small businesses. Several factors contribute to the routine absence of defense counsel:

• Default as a Financial Decision: For many defendants, the cost of hiring a U.S. patent litigator, which can quickly run into tens of thousands of dollars just for an initial appearance, far exceeds the amount of money frozen in their accounts. It is often more economical to abandon the frozen funds and cease selling the accused products than to mount a legal defense.
• Ex Parte TRO and Asset Freeze: The plaintiff's strategy of obtaining an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) freezes the defendants' U.S.-based sales revenue before they are even formally notified of the lawsuit. This immediate financial pressure cripples their ability to fund a defense.
• Service and Jurisdictional Hurdles: The defendants are typically located overseas, and while the court has approved alternative service via email, many may not receive or understand the legal implications of the notice. Proving a lack of personal jurisdiction in Illinois would itself require hiring an attorney and making a special appearance.
• High Rate of Default and Settlement: The procedural posture of "Schedule A" cases is intentionally designed to promote rapid defaults or early, low-cost settlements. Most defendants who engage with plaintiff's counsel do so to negotiate a settlement that releases a portion of their frozen funds in exchange for agreeing to a permanent injunction, rather than formally appearing in court.

Given that a preliminary injunction was entered on May 8, 2026, without any opposition, it is highly probable that the vast majority of defendants will default. Should any defendant choose to appear and contest the allegations, this section will be updated accordingly.