United States District Court, N.D. California
October 7, 2005.
FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff,
DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORP., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES BREYER, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DAEWOO ELECTRONICS
COMPANY, LTD. (DECL) AND DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, INC. (DECA)
Now comes before the Court plaintiff Funai Electric Company
with a Motion for Default Judgment against defendants Daewoo
Electronics Company, LTD. ("DECL") and Daewoo Electronics
Corporation of America, Inc. ("DECA"). On April 18, 2005, the
Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring counsel for DECL
and DECA to appear before it on June 3, 2005. On June 6, 2005,
after no appearance was made by DECL or DECA, the Court entered
default against DECL and DECA and permitted plaintiff to submit
supplemental briefing in support of its Motion for Default
Judgment to "prove-up" damages pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
55(b)(2). On September 19, the Court received plaintiff's
A default judgment against fewer than all defendants is
appropriate "only upon an express determination that there is no
just reason for delay." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Upon entry of
default, the factual allegations of the complaint that establish
the defendant's liability are accepted as true, except for those
regarding damages. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). Once
liability for infringement is accepted as true, the patent owner
must prove damages to a reasonable probability. Kori Corp. v.
Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc., 761 F.2d 649, 653 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). Any doubts regarding the computation of the amount of
damages should be resolved against the infringer. Lummus
Industries, Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp., 862 F.2d 267, 274 (Fed.
After carefully considering the materials relevant to the
damages calculations, and weighing the arguments made in open
court on October 7, 2005, the Court accepts defendant's damages
calculations to a reasonable probability. The Court hereby orders
1) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED as to
DECL and DECA only. Accordingly, the Court holds that DECL and
DECA have directly infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or
actively induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,815,218 ("the
'218 patent"); 5,987,209 ("the '209 patent"); 6,064,538 ("the
'538 patent"); 6,021,018 ("the '018 patent); 6,421,210 ("the '210
patent"); and RE37,322 ("the '322 patent"). The finding of
infringement includes all DECL and DECA products accused of
infringement in plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
Preliminary Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1
dated January 31, 2005, or identified as a result of discovery
provided by defendants after January 31, 2005 and accused of
infringement prior to entry of default.
2) DECA and DECL are permanently ENJOINED from making, using,
selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States
any product identified in this order to infringe one or more of
the '218, '209, '018, '210, '538 and '332 patents.
3) Each of the patents-in-suit is valid and enforceable as to
DECA and DECL only.
4) Plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages in the amount of
5) Plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest from the last date
of the infringement period, October 25, 2002, to the present.
Plaintiff shall recalculate the prejudgment interest and submit
it with the application for fees and costs described below.
6) Plaintiff is awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
because this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Defendants' decision to abruptly cease defending themselves in this matter, coupled with a refusal to turn over
relevant documents pertaining to this lawsuit, warrants this
finding. In order to determine a reasonable amount of fees and
costs, plaintiff may submit a separate fee application and bill
of costs no later than October 28, 2005.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.