Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORP.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-01830 CRB

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

supplemental briefing. 

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.

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 160 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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. Cir. 1988).

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 as

follows:

 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 $6,956,187.

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

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 160 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\1830\order 2 default judgment.wpd 3

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.

Dated: October 7, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 160 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 3