Innovation Indus., LLC v. The Schedule A P’ships, Slip. Op., No. 25 C 3157 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025) (Bucklo, J.)

Judge Bucklo granted in part a motion by appearing defendants to vacate a preliminary injunction entered in a “Schedule A” copyright case involving alleged copying of a staged product photo depicting a hummingbird feeder heater operating in freezing conditions. The Court reaffirmed the preliminary injunction (PI) but narrowed the related asset freeze to specific gross-revenue amounts attributable to listings using the infringing image.

Regarding likelihood of success, the Court found prima facie validity based upon timely copyright registration in the absence of any evidence disputing ownership. The Court rejected arguments that inclusion of a publicly available weather monitor undermined originality. The Court emphasized that a photograph’s protectable originality often lies in its rendition – composition, timing, angle, lighting, and subject placement – rather than in individual components. Regarding “actual copying,” the Court concluded that access and probative similarity were shown: the accused image created the same overall impression, including the identical digital readout on the weather monitor, an alignment unlikely by coincidence. Regarding “wrongful copying,” an ordinary observer would conclude defendants appropriated the protectable expressive elements of the staged winter scene, satisfying the Seventh Circuit’s substantial similarity standard.

The Court also credited irreparable harm, including lost exclusivity and goodwill risks from identical imagery in competing listings, and balanced the equities in plaintiff’s favor as to continued injunctive relief.

The Court also narrowed the asset freeze. Citing the equitable nature of asset freezes tied to an accounting of profits, the Court limited the restraint to the specific gross revenue amounts Amazon reported for each appearing defendant. The Court placed the burden on defendants to prove assets are not traceable to infringing activity and treated gross revenue as an upper bound where profit evidence is lacking.

Two procedural points are noteworthy. First, in photographic copyright cases, defendants should expect that staging and rendition choices may, but do not always, readily establish originality; challenging protectability of individual objects is unlikely to carry the day. Second, courts in the Northern District increasingly calibrate asset restraints to quantified proceeds tied to alleged infringement, not broader account freezes. Plaintiffs should marshal platform revenue data early; defendants seeking to limit or minimize freezes must supply documentation establishing non-infringing sources and actual profits.