Untitled case

Case Overview & Background

This lawsuit represents a common and highly efficient intellectual property enforcement strategy targeting online sellers. The plaintiff, Zhejiang Ledison Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., is an operating company based in China that manufactures and sells a variety of LED lighting products. The defendants are not a single entity but a large, continuously updated group of individuals and small businesses, identified only on a sealed "Schedule A" to the complaint. These defendants operate disparate and often anonymous storefronts on global e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, and Wish. The technology at issue involves the ornamental design of LED light bulbs. The lawsuit alleges that the numerous defendants are selling LED bulbs that are confusingly similar or identical in appearance to the proprietary designs owned by Zhejiang Ledison, thereby infringing on its U.S. design patents.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, with Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. presiding. While the specific patents-in-suit remain under seal along with the complaint, Zhejiang Ledison is known from other similar lawsuits to assert design patents for its lighting products. A representative example of a patent likely at issue is U.S. Design Patent No. D760,933, which covers the ornamental design for an "LED lamp" featuring a particular filament arrangement. The Northern District of Illinois is a strategic and highly popular venue for this type of lawsuit. The court and its judges have significant experience with the unique procedural aspects of "Schedule A" cases, particularly the plaintiffs' use of ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs) to quickly freeze defendants' financial accounts and shut down their online stores before the defendants are even served. This familiarity allows for rapid and efficient processing of these critical early motions.

The litigation is notable not for a novel legal question or a high-stakes battle between industry giants, but as a textbook example of a high-volume, global anti-infringement campaign. This model is frequently used by Chinese manufacturers, represented by specialized U.S. law firms like Greer, Burns & Crain, to police major e-commerce marketplaces. The strategy relies on filing a single lawsuit against hundreds of sellers, leveraging the court's power to grant TROs and asset freezes ex parte, and capitalizing on the high likelihood that the foreign-based, anonymous defendants will default rather than hire expensive U.S. patent counsel. The case thus functions less like traditional litigation and more as a powerful, quasi-administrative tool for removing infringing products from online platforms and seizing associated sales revenue.

Key Legal Developments & Case Status

As of May 14, 2026, the litigation in Case No. 1:26-cv-04643 is in its very early stages and is following the typical, accelerated trajectory of a "Schedule A" patent enforcement action. The primary developments have been the plaintiff's successful efforts to obtain ex parte relief to freeze the defendants' assets, leading to a preliminary injunction. There have been no substantive challenges from any defendant.

Chronological Developments

2026-04-23: Complaint Filed
Hangzhou Yilai Lighting Technology Co Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against a list of defendants identified only on a sealed "Schedule A". The complaint alleged that the defendants, operating online storefronts on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Temu, were selling LED light bulbs that infringe upon U.S. Patent Nos. 11,815,226 (a utility patent for an "Luminant structure of an LED filament") and D1,008,633 (a design patent for an "LED lamp"). (Source: Case Filing, Docket No. 1).

Simultaneously, the plaintiff filed several motions critical to its enforcement strategy:

• Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Docket No. 7): To keep the list of defendant identities and their online stores confidential, preventing them from moving assets before an injunction could be issued.
• Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Docket No. 8): Seeking an immediate court order to freeze the defendants' financial accounts with payment processors like PayPal and Payoneer, and to prevent e-commerce platforms from providing services to the defendants.
• Motion for Alternative Service of Process (Docket No. 9): Requesting permission to serve the defendants via email and messages through their online seller accounts, arguing that conventional service methods are impractical for unidentified foreign entities.

2026-04-24: Motion to Substitute Plaintiff Granted & TRO Entered
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to substitute Zhejiang Ledison Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. as the proper plaintiff in the case (Docket No. 14).

On the same day, Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. granted the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a TRO (Docket No. 15). This order was the crucial first step for the plaintiff, effectively freezing the defendants' U.S.-based assets and storefront operations without prior notice. The court found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm without the order. The order also granted the plaintiff's request for alternative service and expedited discovery from third parties like Amazon and PayPal to identify the defendants and their assets.

2026-05-08: Preliminary Injunction Entered
Following a court hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, for which no defendants appeared, Judge Tharp entered a preliminary injunction against all Schedule A defendants (Docket No. 22). This order extends the terms of the TRO, keeping the defendants' assets frozen and their storefronts disabled for the duration of the litigation or until further court order. This represents a significant victory for the plaintiff, as the continued asset freeze creates immense pressure on defendants to either settle or abandon their funds and default.

Current Posture and Next Steps

The case is currently in the post-preliminary injunction phase.

• Pleadings: No defendant has filed an answer or any counterclaims. The deadline to respond has likely passed for most defendants following alternative service of the summons and complaint.
• Motions: There have been no substantive motions to dismiss, transfer, stay, or for summary judgment filed by any party.
• Claim Construction & Discovery: The case has not advanced to the stages of claim construction (a Markman hearing) or merits discovery. The only discovery conducted has been the expedited discovery served on third-party platforms and payment processors to identify the defendants and locate their assets.
• Outcome: The case is proceeding toward an anticipated default judgment against the non-appearing defendants. This is the typical outcome in "Schedule A" cases. Plaintiff's counsel will likely file a motion for default judgment in the coming months, seeking a permanent injunction and an award of damages, which is often satisfied by the funds frozen by the preliminary injunction.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have been filed against either U.S. Patent No. 11,815,226 or U.S. Patent No. D1,008,633.

The absence of PTAB challenges is expected at this stage. The defendants are numerous, diffuse, and likely lack the sophistication and financial resources required to mount an expensive and complex PTAB challenge to the validity of the asserted patents. Therefore, there is currently no parallel administrative proceeding that could lead to a stay of this district court litigation.

Based on court filings and the established history of this type of litigation, the following attorneys are representing the plaintiff, Zhejiang Ledison Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff Counsel of Record

All attorneys listed are from the same firm, which is widely known for pioneering and executing high-volume, "Schedule A" anti-counterfeiting and patent infringement lawsuits.

Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (GBC)
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Greer, Burns & Crain is a Chicago-based intellectual property law firm that has developed a specialized and highly efficient practice in filing mass-defendant "Schedule A" lawsuits against online sellers on behalf of brand owners. The firm's strategy focuses on securing swift temporary restraining orders (TROs) that freeze defendants' assets, creating powerful leverage for default judgments and settlements.

---

Attorneys:

• Amy Z. Feng (Role: Lead Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: Attorney Feng is frequently listed on court dockets for "Schedule A" intellectual property cases and appears to be one of the primary attorneys managing these high-volume enforcement actions for GBC's clients.

• Dennys Lopez (Role: Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: Like his colleagues, Mr. Lopez is consistently named in GBC's "Schedule A" filings, indicating significant experience with this specific model of IP litigation against online merchants.

• Michael S. Piontek (Role: Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: His name appears on numerous "Schedule A" complaints filed by the firm, showing his integral role in the firm's anti-counterfeiting and patent enforcement practice.

• Jen T. Nacht (Role: Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: Ms. Nacht's professional biography notes her practice focus includes anti-counterfeiting litigation, and she has written articles explaining the strategic underpinnings of "Schedule A" lawsuits.

• Paul G. Juettner (Role: Of Counsel)

  • Firm/Location: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: With a career spanning several decades in intellectual property law, Mr. Juettner brings extensive experience in patent, trademark, and copyright protection and enforcement to the firm.

No Defense Counsel of Record

As of May 14, 2026, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance on behalf of any defendant in this case.

This is the expected posture for a "Schedule A" patent infringement lawsuit at this early stage. The case was filed on April 23, 2026, and summons were issued on May 11, 2026. The defendants, who are numerous and identified only on a sealed schedule, have not yet been formally served or had their deadline to respond to the complaint.

In these types of high-volume enforcement actions against online merchants, it is common for a large percentage of the named defendants to never appear in the case. Many are foreign entities that choose to abandon their frozen funds rather than incur the expense of hiring U.S. counsel to contest the lawsuit. Consequently, the plaintiff, represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, often proceeds to obtain default judgments against the majority of the non-appearing defendants.

This section will be updated if any defendant formally retains counsel and files an appearance with the court.