Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.


August 3, 2004.

TELEQUIP CORPORATION, a New Hampshire Corporation, Plaintiff,
CHANGE EXCHANGE, a New York Corporation; KORUS TECHNOLOGIES, a California Corporation; SEOUL INFORMATION INDUSTRIAL, INC., a Korean Corporation; OPTIMAL ROBOTICS CORPORATION, a Canadian Corporation; and OPTIMAL ROBOTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,[fn1] Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDERICK SCULLIN, Chief Judge, District

*fn1 Defendants Change Exchange, Optimal Robotics Corp. and Optimal Robotics, Inc. entered into a consent judgment with Plaintiff and are no longer parties to this action. See Dkt. Nos. 8, 11. Plaintiff dismissed voluntarily against Defendant Korus. See Dkt. No. 5. Defendant Seoul Information Industrial, Inc. has never appeared in this action.



  Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to Defendant Seoul Information Industrial, Inc. ("Seoul") pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


  Plaintiff alleges that it owns U.S. Patent No. 5,830,055, which consists of a coin/token changing machine. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Seoul violated 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using and selling an infringing machine in this District and in other areas internationally.

  Plaintiff alleges that, after filing its complaint, it diligently attempted to serve Defendant Seoul in compliance with the Hague Convention on Service Abroad. Plaintiff succeeded in doing so on April 22, 2003. Defendant Seoul failed to appear, and, on November 6, 2003, the Clerk entered default against Defendant Seoul. By letter dated November 14, 2003, the Court notified Plaintiff that it must file a motion for entry of a default judgment on the issue of liability or face dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. The Court further ordered that, if Plaintiff moved for default judgment, Defendant would have to respond on or before February 9, 2004. Plaintiff complied and filed the instant motion.

  Defendant Seoul has never appeared in this action.*fn2 III. DISCUSSION

  A. Default Judgment Standard

  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe a two-step process to enter judgment by default. See Thomas v. Biocine Sclavo, S.P.A., No. 94CV1568, 1998 WL 51861, *2-*3 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1998). Under Rule 55(a), a clerk must first enter the default against a party who fails to plead or otherwise defend. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). The party seeking entry of default must provide evidence that the entry of default is appropriate. See id. The second step in the process requires that a plaintiff move the court for default judgment. See Thomas, 1998 WL 51861, at *3. In considering a motion for default judgment, the court will treat the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true, and the court will then analyze those facts for their sufficiency to state a claim. See id. at *3-*4 (citations omitted).

  With these standards in mind, the Court will address Plaintiff's claims.

  B. Plaintiff's causes of action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.

  To establish a prima facie patent infringement claim, a plaintiff must plead (1) that the trial court has jurisdiction over the matter; (2) that the plaintiff has title to the patent; (3) that the plaintiff is the original and first inventor who was subject to infringement; (4) the claims of the patent which the defendant has infringed and (5) that the defendant received notice of the infringement. See 60 Am.Jur.2d Patents § 875 (2003) (footnotes omitted); see also Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. v. New Wave Dental, Inc., No. 01-CV-0211E, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25514 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2002).

  Plaintiff alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a) and personal jurisdiction over Defendant Seoul because Defendant Seoul has committed patent infringement within this District. Plaintiff alleges further that it owns a valid United States patent for a "Coin Token Canister and Ejection Mechanism." See First Amended Complaint at ¶ 12. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Seoul has willfully violated this exclusive patent by "making, using, selling and/or offering for sale their coin/token changer products." See id. at ¶ 13.*fn3 In light of these allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to ...

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.