PHILADELPHIA – A permanent injunction has been granted in a patent infringement case, where a federal judge said the plaintiff demonstrated the issuing of such an injunction was “in the public’s interest.”
On Thursday, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District granted the injunction to Innovelis, Inc., a designer and seller of mounting devices for media players, against defendants Auch, Boompow International, co2CREA, Cosmos, Jelly Comb, Konsait, Oumers, Shenzhen Hapurs Technology Co., Susan’s Gadgets, and Tvoka.
Innovelis claimed the defendants collectively infringed on a patent it owns, and filed suit against in May of last year. After providing certificates of service that all defendants received the complaint, Innovelis sought both default judgment against all defendants for not responding to their lawsuit, and a permanent injunction preventing them from further infringement on their patented material.
“Innovelis has demonstrated that it properly served the summons and complaint in a manner consistent with the Court’s Aug. 13, 2015 Order and the defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond,” Pappert said. “Further, the three factors articulated in Chamberlain all weigh in favor of granting the motion for default judgment.”
“First, denying the motion will prejudice Innovelis by permitting defendants to continue to infringe on the ‘616 Patent. Second, by failing to appear and participate in the litigation defendants ‘have not asserted any defense to plaintiffs’ claims. Finally, defendants’ delay in responding to the complaint ‘is due to their culpable conduct because they have failed to appear or to defend this action.’ The Court accordingly finds that default judgment should be granted against defendants,” Pappert added.
Pappert also provided his opinion regarding Innovelis’s request for a permanent injunction to be handed down against the defendants.
“A patent holder seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate that: (1) It has suffered irreparable injury; (2) Remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate compensation; (3) A remedy in equity is warranted considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant; and (4) That the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction,” Pappert stated.
Pappert explained Innovelis demonstrated it has suffered irreparable injury and that remedies at law are inadequate compensation.
“Since the factual allegations in the complaint are to be taken as true, the Court must accept the claim that the defendants are infringing on the ‘616 Patent and the Court may issue a permanent injunction,” Pappert said.
“Remedies at law are inadequate compensation because, due to the defendants’ absence, Innovelis is unable to determine the extent of the monetary loss caused by their infringement. Defendants did not respond to Innovelis’s request to provide it with an accounting of sales of the products. The defendants’ failure to respond to that request, combined with its failure to participate in this litigation has prevented Innovelis ‘from discovering the full extent of damages that it could recover,” Pappert added.
Pappert added Innovelis, a manufacturer in a “niche business” successfully demonstrated both that its patent was infringed upon by the defendants, and a “balance of hardship” in their favor.
“There is nothing in the record to suggest that a permanent injunction would damage defendants’ businesses. Here, any hardship to defendants is discounted by the fact that they have infringed on the ‘616 Patent. Innovelis has accordingly demonstrated that a balance of hardships weighs in favor of granting the permanent injunction,” Pappert said.
“Finally, there are no facts to suggest that the public will be significantly affected by granting a permanent injunction. To the contrary, ‘were an injunction not issued, there would be harm to the public’s interest in having patent rights enforced and protected in the courts,” Pappert concluded.
The plaintiff is represented by Wesley E. Schwie of Friends of Schwie Law, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:15-cv-02661
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com