Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Revogi, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 27, 2019

TECHNICAL LED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
REVOGI, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 30

          JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Revogi, LLC (“Revogi”), alleging infringement of one or more claims of Plaintiff's patent, U.S. Reissue Patent No. 41, 685 (“the ‘685 Patent”), entitled “Light Source With Non-White and Phoshor-Based White LED Devices and LCD Assembly.” (Dkt. No. 1.)[1] The Clerk entered default as to Revogi on March 27, 2019, (Dkt. No. 29), after it failed to appear or otherwise defend itself in this action. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). (Dkt. No. 30.) The Court thus VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 11, 2019, and permits Plaintiff to seek discovery regarding the number of infringing units sold.

         BACKGROUND

         I. Complaint Allegations

         Plaintiff alleges that Revogi violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (“the Patent Act”) by “making, using, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale products . . . comprising a light source” that infringed on one or more claims of the ‘685 Patent. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief under the Patent Act based on Revogi's infringement. Upon the Clerk's entry of default, the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, except those concerning damages, are deemed to have been admitted by the non-responding party. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). The Court thus accepts the following allegations as true.

         A. The Parties

         Plaintiff is “a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 251 Little Falls Dr., Wilmington, DE 19808.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1.)

         Revogi[2] has “a principal place of business at 101 First St., Suite 440, Los Altos, CA.” (Id. at ¶ 2.)

         B. The Patent Infringement

         Plaintiff's ‘685 Patent was issued on September 14, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7 (citing LIGHT SOURCE WITH NON-WHITE AND PHOSPHOR- BASED WHITE LED DEVICES, AND LCD ASSEMBLY, U.S. PAT RE41685).) Defendant Revogi offers for sale and has sold to consumers in the United States Revogi products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘685 Patent. (Dkt. No. 39 at 10.) Revogi's infringing products “comprise an optical cavity; first light emitting diodes each emitting white light and each encased in a light transmitting package; second light emitting diodes that emit a non-white light and encased in alight transmitting package; wherein the first and second light emitting diodes emit light into the optical cavity such that mixing of their spectral outputs occurs in the optical cavity.” (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B.)

         III. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed its complaint on June 27, 2018. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff served Summons on Revogi on July 3, 2018. (Dkt. No. 9). On July 17, 2018, “Jun Meng, Defendant in pro per” mailed an Answer to Plaintiff, but did not file the Answer with the Court. (See Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff's subsequent attempts to contact Jun Meng failed. (See id.) On October 18, 2018, Jun Meng filed with the Court an Answer to Plaintiff's complaint, as “Defendant in Pro Per For Revogi, LLC.” (Dkt. No. 22.) However, because a corporation cannot be represented by a non-attorney, see Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.”); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”), the Court ordered Revogi to proceed in this action with counsel. (Dkt. No. 23.) Revogi did not appear following the Court's order requiring counsel, and Plaintiff filed for entry of default with the Clerk of the Court on March 26, 2019. (Dkt. No. 28.) The Clerk entered default as to Revogi the next day. (Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment on May 30, 2019. (Dkt. No. 30.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. Jurisdiction

         District courts have an affirmative duty to examine their jurisdiction-both subject matter and personal jurisdiction-when default judgment is sought against a non-appearing party. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999).

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to Infringement of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.