PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page i of iii

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

KELLIE DEFRIES

Plaintiff,

versus

MSB TRADE INC., et al.

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00549-G

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT MSB TRADE, INC.

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, KELLIE 

DEFRIES, moves for entry of default and for default judgment against Defendant MSB Trade 

Inc., dba Central Sales (“MSB”) for all claims and states as follows:

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID 707
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page ii of iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................1

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.......................................................................................................1

A. Original Complaint of Patent Infringement ............................................................ 1

B. Default by Defendant MSB Trade Inc. ................................................................... 1

III. BACKGROUND FACTS ..........................................................................................................2

A. Plaintiff’s Patents.................................................................................................... 2

B. Infringement by Defendant MSB Trade Inc. .......................................................... 2

C. Defendant MSB Trade Inc.’s Lack of Cooperation ................................................ 3

IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................3

A. Default judgment is proper against Defendant MSB Trade Inc. ............................ 3

B. Plaintiff has properly pled patent infringement ...................................................... 4

C. This case merits award of treble damages .............................................................. 5

D. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that this Court compel discovery of damages...... 6

E. This case merits attorney’s fees and costs .............................................................. 7

V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................8

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID 708
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page iii of iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989).............................................................................7

Brown v. Kenron Aluminum & Glass Corp., 477 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1973)......................................................................8

Humana Inc. et al., v. Allcare Physcicians Group, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-0972-P (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2021) ..............4

Key Bank v. Tablecloth Textile Corp., 74 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 1996)..................................................................................2

Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................................4

Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019)...............................................5

Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975)...................................................................4

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) ........................................................................9

Read Corp. v. Portec Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................7

Sap America Inc., v. Investpic, LLC., Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-02689-K (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018) (J. E. Kinkeade) \s....8

Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Cir. 2014)................................................................................................9

United States v. Shipco Gen., Inc., 814 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1987)..................................................................................6

Wells Fargo Bank v. George E. Dixon, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-00745-X (N.D Tex. Jan. 12, 2021) (J. Starr) .................4

Wright v. E-Systems, LLC., Civil No. 3:12-CV-4715-K-BK (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2016) (J. R. Toliver)..................................7

STATUTES

35 U.S.C. § 271...............................................................................................................................................................1

35 U.S.C. § 281...............................................................................................................................................................4

35 U.S.C. § 283...............................................................................................................................................................5

35 U.S.C. § 284...............................................................................................................................................................5

35 U.S.C. § 285...............................................................................................................................................................7

RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(2).......................................................................................................................................................9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) ................................................................................................................................................1, 2, 3

L.R. 7.1(b), ....................................................................................................................................................................9

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID 709
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 1 of 9

I. SUMMARY

(1) Defendant MSB Trade Inc., dba Central Sales has defaulted. Defendant has failed 

to defend itself.

(2) Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has not cooperated to provide records necessary to 

assess damages.

(3) Default judgment is proper and enhanced damages for infringement is appropriate 

in light of the known facts in this case.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Original Complaint of Patent Infringement

1. This is a patent infringement case wherein Plaintiff has filed statutory claims for 

patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. See Dkt. 1.

2. Plaintiff has specifically pled: (1) that Plaintiff is the current and exclusive owner 

and assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 10/308,005, D867,837, 

D867,839, 10/675,853, and 10/967,625; and (2) that Defendant directly infringed upon the above 

referenced patents––by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United 

States, without authority, products, methods performed by and/or attributable to equipment, and 

or services that practice one or more claims of the above referenced patents. Compare Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 

22, 30, 38, 46, and 54 with Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 24, 32, 40, 48, and 56.

3. Plaintiff filed her Original Complaint on 03/08/2022. Dkt. 1.

B. Default by Defendant MSB Trade Inc.

4. Plaintiff served Defendant MSB Trade Inc., on March 11, 2022 and by April 1, 

2022 Defendant MSB Trade Inc., had defaulted. See Dkt. 1.

5. Pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff presents 

this motion for entry of default and a default judgment.

6. Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has failed to correct its default.

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID 710
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 2 of 9

7. Because Defendant MSB Trade Inc., did not file a responsive pleading or 

otherwise defend the suit, it is not entitled to notice of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); Key Bank v. 

Tablecloth Textile Corp., 74 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 1996).

III. BACKGROUND FACTS

A. Plaintiff’s Patents

8. Plaintiff owns the following registered federal patents:

a. Patent No.: US 10,308,005 B2

Date of Patent: June. 4, 2019

b. Patent No.: US 10,675,852 B2

Date of Patent: June. 9, 2020

c. Patent No.: US 10,967,625 B2

Date of Patent: April 6, 2021

d. Patent No.: D867,838 S

Date of Patent: November 26, 2019

e. Patent No.: D867,839 S

Date of Patent: November 26, 2019

Dkt. 7, 1-41.

B. Infringement by Defendant MSB Trade Inc.

9. Defendant MSB Trade Inc., currently sells infringing products through at least

Amazon. Dkt. 1, 20(a);

10. Defendant MSB Trade Inc., an artificial entity, is neither a minor, incompetent, 

nor in the military service.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant MSB Trade Inc., currently sells 

approximately 46 infringing units per month for approximately $872.62 via Amazon ASIN No. 

B08B37BVLC. Id.

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID 711
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 3 of 9

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has been selling 

infringing units in Texas since approximately June 2020. Id.

13. This information, without considering other venders (Ebay, Walmart, Alibaba, 

Target, etc,) or states, paints an alarming picture.

14. A simple mathematical calculation shows that the actions of Defendant MSB 

Trade Inc., have cost the Plaintiff over $883,000.00 in lost goodwill and lost profits in Texas 

alone.

C. Defendant MSB Trade Inc.’s Lack of Cooperation

15. Despite being an American entity with listed offices at 1 Central Sales Way, 

Highland Mills NY, 10930 US, and despite service, Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has not 

answered or otherwise defended this suit. Compare docket and lack of any entries by Defendant.

16. Rather, Defendant MSB Trade Inc.’s., entire lack of response and correspondence 

without any reasonable justification establishes its intent to cooperate as little as possible in this 

dispute. See generally docket.

17. Without Defendant MSB Trade Inc.’s cooperation to determine the volume of 

infringing units sold, Plaintiff is unable to specifically quantify its damages.

IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Default judgment is proper against Defendant MSB Trade Inc.

18. Under Rule 55(b)(2)

“a party may apply for the court to enter a default judgment, and the ‘court may 

conduct hearings or make referrals—preserving any federal statutory right to a 

jury trial—when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an 

accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any 

allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.”

Wells Fargo Bank v. George E. Dixon, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-00745-X at *2 (N.D Tex. Jan. 

12, 2021) (J. Starr) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)).

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID 712
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 4 of 9

19. “A default judgment is a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and 

resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.” Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 

2001). Therefore “there must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.” 

Humana Inc. et al., v. Allcare Physcicians Group, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-0972-P at *1 (N.D. 

Tex. Nov. 12, 2021) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 

(5th Cir. 1975)). The well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true. Id.

20. Here, Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has never filed an answer or responsive 

pleading. See generally docket.

21. Therefore, because Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend, this Court may (1) enter default against Defendant MSB Trade Inc., (2) accept all wellpleaded facts in the complaint as true; (3) and award Plaintiff the relief she seeks. Humana 1-3.

B. Plaintiff has properly pled patent infringement

22. Title 35 allows a “patentee” to bring a civil action for patent infringement. 35 

U.S.C. § 281. A patentee is one with “all rights or substantial rights” in a patent. Integrity 

Worldwife Inc. v. Rapid-EPS LTD., et al., 3:17-CV-00055 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2021)(quoting 

Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).

23. A patentee can sue for patent infringement in its own name. Id.

24. Plaintiff is the legal owner of the asserted patents that Defendant MSB Trade Inc., 

has infringed. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 22, 30, 38,46, 54.

25. Plaintiff took additional care to demonstrate through blow-up details and claim 

descriptions the infringement of Defendant MSB Trade Inc. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 19, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51.

26. Plaintiff therefore submits that these allegations are well pled and adequately 

assert claims for patent infringement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on 

these claims should be granted.

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID 713
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 5 of 9

C. This case merits award of treble damages

27. In patent actions, upon a finding in Plaintiff’s favor, the court must award 

damages that are adequate to compensate for the infringement as well as interest and costs as 

fixed by the court. 35 U.S.C. § 284. The court may increase the damages up to three times the 

amount found or assessed. Id. The court may also grant an injunction to prevent the violation of 

any right secured by patent on terms that the court deems reasonable. 35 U.S.C. § 283.

28. Defendant MSB has willfully and deliberately ignored Plaintiff’s service.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendant MSB has willfully and deliberately 

continued to sell infringing products after notice of the pending suit.

30. Upon information and belief Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has been selling at least 

46 infringing units per month through Amazon in the State of Texas for a price of $872.62 since 

June 2020. Dkt. 1, 20(a).

31. It is the Court’s task to fix the amount of damages following the entry of a default 

judgment. United States v. Shipco Gen., Inc., 814 F.2d 1011, 1014 (5th Cir. 1987).

32. Plaintiff has suffered an amount of damages in excess of $800,000 due to 

Defendant MSB Trade Inc.’s sales of infringing units through Amazon. Defendant MSB Trade 

Inc., has refused to cooperate or engage in this suit and a more accurate calculation of damages is

not feasible.

33. This loss calculation only considers infringing units sold through Amazon and in 

Texas.

34. Some of the factors to consider in deciding whether enhanced damages are 

warranted and the extent of the enhancement include the following: whether the infringer 

deliberately copied the design of another, the infringer’s behavior during the litigation, the 

infringer’s size and financial condition, the duration of the infringer’s misconduct, any remedial 

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID 714
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 6 of 9

action taken by the infringer, and whether the infringer attempted to conceal its misconduct.

Wright v. E-Systems, LLC., Civil No. 3:12-CV-4715-K-BK at *9 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2016) (J. 

R. Toliver) (citing Read Corp. v. Portec Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

35. In the instant case, Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has been making significant and 

large sales of infringing units every month. Furthermore, Defendant MSB Trade Inc., 

continuously sold the infringing unit through Amazon at least as early as June 2020. Defendant 

MSB Trade Inc. deliberately and continuously infringed upon Plaintiff’s patent and has taken no 

remedial action. Plaintiff has been forced to initiate this lawsuit, and Defendant MSB Trade Inc., 

flaunts their infringement by failing to participate.

36. Defendant MSB Trade Inc.’s refusal to participate while being domiciled in the 

US and having no excuses is indicative of their willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, 

consciously wrongful, flagrant infringement that enhanced damages were designed for. See 

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989).

37. Thus, an enhanced damage award of $2,649,274.32 is appropriate (treble 

damages).

D. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that this Court compel discovery of damages

38. Alternatively, Plaintiff incorporates by reference all discussion and submits to this 

Court that Defendant has likely damaged Plaintiff beyond what she believes.

39. Upon entry of default, Defendant’s liability will be established. A defendant in 

default cannot contest the merits of the plaintiff’s right to recover. Brown v. Kenron Aluminum & 

Glass Corp., 477 F.2d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 1973).

40. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court permit discovery in order to 

determine damages and collect evidence to support a permanent injunction.

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID 715
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 7 of 9

E. This case merits attorney’s fees and costs

41. A district court may find that a patent case is exceptional and award attorney fees 

to a prevailing party. Sap America Inc., v. Investpic, LLC., Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-02689-K at 

*1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018) (J. E. Kinkeade) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 285).

42. A case is exceptional if it stands out from other cases with respect to the 

substantive strength of a party’s litigating position considering both the governing law and the 

facts of the case or if the case stands out in the unreasonable manner in which the case was 

litigated. Sap America Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-02689-K at *1 (citing Octane Fitness, LLC v. 

Icon Health Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014)).

43. This case stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of 

Plaintiff’s position. There is no doubt that the patents at issue have been duly issued by the 

USPTO. The validity of the claims is thus assumed. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 

709, 720 (Cir. 2014). Furthermore, Plaintiff provided detailed depictions of the patents, and 

descriptions of infringement in her complaint. Defendant MSB Trade Inc., refusal to participate 

in this suit demonstrates the strength of Plaintiff’s position. See Appendix A, Affidavit in

Support of Default.

44. Defendant MSB Trade Inc. has done nothing to defend itself in this dispute, has

defaulted on all deadlines, and refuses to participate in this suit. Defendant MSB Trade Inc., has 

not litigated this case in a reasonable manner.

45. Thus, when considering the totality of the circumstances, this case is exceptional.

46. Plaintiff therefore requests that this Court award its attorney’s fees, reasonably 

calculated at $12,201.87 pursuant to the “Lodestar” test. See Appendix B, Affidavit of Fees.

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID 716
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 8 of 9

V. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff expressly requests that the Clerk of this Honorable Court enter an 

entry of default against Defendant MSB Trade Inc.

WHEREFORE, that after entering an entry of default against Defendant MSB Trade Inc., 

this Court awards Default Judgment pursuant to this motion against Defendant MSB Trade Inc., 

for being in default and failing to defend itself against Plaintiff’s claims. Because Defendant has 

willfully infringed, failed to cooperate, and otherwise acted unreasonably during litigation of this 

suit, this Court should award enhanced damages of no less than $2,649,274.32 and attorney’s 

fees of $12,201.87.

Dated this May 04, 2022

Respectfully Submitted, 

By: /Omar F. Darwich/

The Darwich Law Firm

Omar F. Darwich

State Bar No. 24124686

300 Weatherstone Dr. #190

Wadsworth, OH 44281

330-333-0773

omar@darwichlegal.com

And

Leavitt Eldredge Law Firm

Brandon James Leavitt

State Bar No. 24078841

4204 SW Green Oaks Blvd. Suite 140

Arlington, TX 76107

214-727-2055

brandon@uslawpros.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID 717
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On May 4, 2022, I attempted to confer with representatives of Defendant MSB Trade 

Inc., however, after a good faith effort, direct contact was unable to made. I was able to

connect with a secretary who, on behalf of Defendant MSB Trade Inc., informed me that no

information would be released (including names, addresses, emails, etc.) Defendant has made 

no effort to defend himself through counsel or pro se. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(b), this motion 

and the relief requested herein should be presumed to be opposed by Defendant.

/s/ Omar F. Darwich/

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On May 4, 2022, I filed PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT MSB TRADE, INC., with the clerk of court for the 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. I hereby certify that the document was also

served on Defendant MSB Trade Inc., through mail but that no service is required on a 

party who is in default for failing to appear. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(2).

/s/ Omar F. Darwich/

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 23 Filed 05/04/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID 718