1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KELLIE DEFRIES,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MSB TRADE INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 122. Plaintiff

seeks entry of default judgment against Defendants alyer, annbay ltd, aoshang, audab store, 

barney/skd-us, beautychen, deskoti, enzo-missdeer-us, gao yongxue-yongusuus, gu bingdingeyxformula, honoson, jackshen-mooerca us, jinhua cao-ztl fashion, lisihua-jiasheng direct, magic 

c-moibase gel polish, njqianrou-nanjingqianroubuliaoyouxiangongsi, qiaocrystal-shiny crystal,

subay-subay direct, tangsanyuan ba, tatuo us, tianping liu-biutee store, tianshui wang-over the 

hills, xin huang-angnya nails, xinqitong, xiulin dai-yokilly beauty, xushujun-kang yue trading, 

yao angela-honey joy beauty & health, zhang zhaoqin-juanzhizong, zhouyanghao, zhujunjiehzsbass store (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”). On July 24, 2024, the Court held an 

evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Default Judgment. 

Upon review of the Motion and supporting documentation, and for the reasons stated on 

the record during the hearing, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED IN PART, 

and that Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable royalty to compensate for past infringement. 

Plaintiff’s requests for a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and pre-judgment interest are

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID 3318
2

DENIED. Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants other than the Defaulting Defendants are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides for entry of a default and default judgment 

when a party against whom judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend. Fed. R. Civ. P 55(a). “Default judgment is proper only if the well-pleaded 

factual allegations in the . . . Complaint establish a valid cause of action.” United States v. 1998 

Freightliner Vin #: 1FUYCZYB3WP886986, 548 F. Supp. 2d 381 (W.D. Tex. 2008); see also 

Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975) (“There 

must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment.”). After the clerk enters a default, 

“the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true, except regarding damages.” 

U.S. For Use of M-Co Constr., Inc. v. Shipco Gen., Inc., 814 F. 2d 1011, 1014 (5th Cir. 1987).

In considering a motion for default judgment, the Court will consider (1) whether the 

entry of default judgment is procedurally warranted, (2) whether a sufficient basis in the 

pleadings based on the substantive merits for judgment exists, and (3) what form of relief, if any, 

a plaintiff should receive. Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Here, the 

Court has considered the factors set forth in Lindsey and concludes that entry of default judgment 

is procedurally warranted, and that the Defaulting Defendants have been properly served but 

have not appeared. 

In addition, the Court has evaluated the allegations in the First Amended Complaint and 

determines that a substantive basis for judgment exists. Plaintiff is the named inventor on five 

asserted patents: two utility patents1 and two design patents.

2

 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that 

1 Specifically, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,308,005 (“’005 patent”) and 10,967,625 (“’625 patent”). Plaintiff no longer seeks 

recovery as to U.S. Patent 10,675,852 (“’852 patent”). See ECF No. 122 at 5. 2 Specifically, U.S. Patent Nos. D867,838 (“’838 patent”), and D867,839 (“’839 patent”).

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID 3319
3

the Defaulting Defendants have infringed claims 1, 9–11 of the ’005 patent, claim 1 of the ’625 

patent, claim 1 of the ’838 patent, and claim 1 of the ’839 patent (collectively, the “asserted 

claims”). The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint and the evidence presented by 

Plaintiff, including Plaintiff’s testimony at the hearing, and concludes that Plaintiff has 

established direct infringement of the asserted claims by the Defaulting Defendants through sales 

of products associated with the following ASINs,

3 the “accused ASINs”: 

B09TQMRHQ7 B08LPR3JKS B07X632YLD B07DTB2CBR

B09TQMC8L5 B08LBL4JMG B07V42WKQZ B07CWB7YFX

B09S9N7SF9 B08FTBZG36 B07T7DJ1FV B07CNF6FB1

B09LD4W3RH B08FSJSLFG B07T65M5S5 B07C2TCZHH

B09KR9BDBH B08D67VZYC B07QR976Z9 B07BXFSC87

B093H1LCTH B08BC8RJHW B07PXHLNQ4 B07BK1TMH4

B091KZPD17 B08B37BVLC B07PWC7VK3 B077GNC8FT

B0912H7RB2 B08B34P513 B07PVHGTPP B076M1F81T

B08XXZL83D B088NTNLT1 B07P6G7356

B08XBG4Z46 B085RQKWNF B07KCRGZBN

B09TQMRHQ7 B0827VWDS9 B07HQ5NXC9

B08V5MNQR7 B08LPR3JKS B07X632YLD

See ECF No. 122-5. 

The Court proceeds to Plaintiff’s requested relief. Damages for patent infringement are 

governed by 35 U.S.C. § 284, which provides, in pertinent part, that “the court shall award the 

claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a 

reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The 

patentee bears the burden of proving damages. Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc., 341 F.3d 

1370, 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A reasonable royalty is the amount that ‘a person, desiring 

to manufacture [, use, or] sell a patented article, as a business proposition, would be willing to 

pay as a royalty and yet be able to make [, use, or] sell the patented article, in the market, at a 

3 An “ASIN” is a unique identifier specific to the Amazon.com platform; each product sold on Amazon has a unique 

ASIN assigned to it. ECF No. 34 (“FAC”) ¶ 42. 

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3320
4

reasonable profit.’” Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 435 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. 

Cir. 2006) (alterations in original) (quoting Trans–World Mfg. Corp. v. Al Nyman & Sons, Inc., 

750 F.2d 1552, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). 

The Court determines that a reasonable royalty is the appropriate measure of damages in 

this case.4

 Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a reasonable royalty similar to license 

agreements previously entered into between Plaintiff and other accused infringers of the asserted 

claims. Plaintiffs provide a representative license agreement that states, “As long as Defendant 

wishes to sell application tools identified by [ASIN], or functional and design equivalents 

thereof, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a royalty rate of $1,000 per month or 3% of gross 

proceeds per month, whichever is higher. This agreement shall terminate upon Defendant 

ceasing payments.” ECF No. 122-4 at 2. During the hearing, Plaintiff testified that royalty rates 

between 3% and 5% of gross proceeds are typical for license agreements in this industry and 

market. 

The Court notes that although Plaintiff requests a royalty to be calculated on a per month 

basis, Plaintiff has only provided data for the Defaulting Defendants’ gross proceeds on a 

quarterly basis, and incomplete data at that.5 Thus, because Plaintiff has not provided data from 

which the requested royalty can be calculated on a monthly basis, the Court will amend 

Plaintiff’s request to reflect royalties to be paid on a quarterly basis. In addition, contrary to 

Plaintiffs’ request, royalties for past infringement shall be paid only for the quarters in which 

4 In her Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff sought to recover lost profits. ECF No. 122. During the hearing, the 

Court determined that an award of lost profits was not appropriate as a matter of law, after evaluating the factors set 

forth in Panduit. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (citing Panduit Corp. 

v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)). 5

Plaintiff has provided evidence of gross proceeds for Q3 of 2020 through Q4 of 2023. ECF No. 122-2. As the 

Court noted during the hearing, the data provided by Plaintiff in Ex. B, Infringer Quarterly Gross Profit, does not

provide data for every quarter, and instead omits certain quarters for seemingly no reason. See ECF No. 122-2. 

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID 3321
5 

Plaintiff has provided evidence of a royalty base, i.e., evidence of gross proceeds by a particular

Defendant.

6

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for a reasonable royalty as 

follows. As long as a Defaulting Defendant wishes to sell products identified by the accused 

ASINs, the Defendant shall pay Plaintiff a royalty rate of $1,000 per quarter or 5% of gross 

proceeds per quarter, whichever is higher. There is no obligation for any Defaulting Defendant 

to pay a royalty for any month in which it makes no infringing sales under the accused ASINs. 

Based on this royalty rate, the Court calculates Plaintiff’s damages for infringement 

through the date of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as follows: 

Defaulting Defendant Total Damages

alyer $2,000.00

annbay ltd $1,000.00

aoshang $8,710.98

audab store $7,000.98

barney/skd-us $1,000.00

beautychen $1,000.00

deskoti $7,134.93 

enzo-missdeer-us $1,000.00

gao yongxue-yongusuus $1,000.00

gu bingding-eyxformula $2,000.00

honoson $5,515.50

jackshen-mooerca us $1,000.00

jinhua cao-ztl fashion $1,000.00

lisihua-jiasheng direct $1,000.00

magic c-moibase gel polish $1,000.00

njqianrou-nanjingqianroubuliaoyouxiangongsi $1,000.00

6 In her proposed form of judgment, Plaintiff appears to have calculated the royalty amount per month regardless of 

whether there is evidence that the particular Defaulting Defendant in question made any sales under the accused 

ASINs. For example, Plaintiff’s evidence indicates that Defaulting Defendant “annbay ltd” made $91.40 in gross 

proceeds based on infringing sales in Q3 of 2020, but did not make any other sales. ECF No. 122-2 at 2. Despite this, 

Plaintiff calculates the royalty amount for annbay ltd. to be $47,000, seemingly based on a $1,000 per month royalty 

for every month from Q3 of 2020 through Q4 of 2023. When compared to the relatively minimal infringement alleged, 

such a disproportionate royalty is clearly not reasonable, and far exceeds what is necessary to compensate for the 

infringement. See Applied Med. Res. Corp., 435 F.3d at 1361 (“[R]easonable royalty damages are not calculated in a 

vacuum without consideration of the infringement being redressed.”). Plaintiff is not entitled to a royalty when there

is no infringement. 

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID 3322
6 

qiaocrystal-shiny crystal $1,000.00

subay-subay direct $21,313.02

tangsanyuan ba7 -

tatuo us $6,599.60

tianping liu-biutee store $1,000.00

tianshui wang-over the hills $1,000.00

xin huang-angnya nails $5,000.00

xinqitong $2,000.00

xiulin dai-yokilly beauty $7,269.79

xushujun-kang yue trading $1,000.00

yao angela-honey joy beauty & health $4,021.50 

zhang zhaoqin-juanzhizong $1,000.00

zhouyanghao $2,000.00

zhujunjie-hzsbass store $1,000.00

See Exhibit A.8

For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff’s request for enhanced damages based on 

willful infringement is denied. In addition, Plaintiff’s request for pre-judgment interest is denied. 

“[I]t may be appropriate to limit prejudgment interest, or perhaps even deny it altogether, where 

the patent owner has been responsible for undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit.” See General 

Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 657 (1983). Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s 

prosecution of this lawsuit was somewhat dilatory in nature, in that on occasion, she failed to 

effectuate and establish service of Defendants, or seek entry of default and default judgment, 

until prompted by the Court.9 E.g., ECF Nos. 29, 91. 

Finally, in addition to monetary damages from the Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff 

sought a permanent injunction against numerous other Defendants for whom there is insufficient 

7 Defaulting Defendant “tangsanyuan ba” is not listed on Plaintiff’s Ex. B, Infringer Quarterly Gross Profit, and 

Plaintiff provides no other evidence of gross proceeds of this Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established 

her entitlement to any royalty from this Defendant. 

8 To calculate Plaintiff’s royalties, the Court used the gross proceed figures provided by Plaintiff in support of her 

Motion for Default Judgment. See ECF No. 122 (“Ex. B, Infringer Quarterly Gross Profit”). The Court notes that 

Plaintiff only provided evidence of gross proceeds through Q4 of December 2023. 9 Much of the delay in this case stemmed from Plaintiff’s decision to name over two-hundred Defendants in this 

lawsuit, which resulted in significant administrative inefficiencies and complications regarding service and proof of 

service, but has only sought default judgment as to these particular thirty Defaulting Defendants. 

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID 3323
7 

or no evidence of gross sales of infringing products. During the hearing, the Court denied 

Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction. Accordingly, since Plaintiff is now only seeking 

relief from the Defaulting Defendants, all Defendants except for the Defaulting Defendants are 

hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this Order.

SO ORDERED.

August 2, 2024. 

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID 3324
8

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID 3325
Defaulting Defendant

2020 Q3 Gross Profits 

2020 Q3 Royalty 

2021 Q1 Gross Profits

2021 Q1 Royalty

2021 Q3 Gross Profits

2021 Q3 Royalty

2021 Q4 Gross Profits 

2021 Q4 Royalty

2022 Q1 Gross Profits

alyer 3208.41 1000.00 45.54 1000.00annbay ltd 91.40 1000.00aoshang 29547.00 1477.35 13402.65 1000.00 13584.50 1000.00 40703.4audab store 20019.69 1000.98 7832.97 1000.00 6353.79 1000.00 14769.6barney/skd-us 2403.66 1000.00beautychendeskoti 29051.61 1452.58 69816.66 3490.83enzo-missdeer-us 1748.25 1000.00gao yongxue-yongusuus 719.10 1000.00gu bingding-eyxformula 9427.55 1000.00 13606.3honoson 5031.00 2515.50 4611.87 1000.00 2912.76 1000.00 1156.46 1000.00jackshen-mooerca us 5958.48 1000.00jinhua cao-ztl fashion 23.98 1000.00lisihua-jiasheng direct 1949.75 1000.00magic c-moibase gel polish 718.20 1000.00njqianrounanjingqianroubuliaoyouxiangongsi 3533.45 1000.00qiaocrystal-shiny crystal 5345.31 1000.00subay-subay direct 99753.57 4987.68 87045.00 4352.25 166846.53 8342.33tangsanyuan batatuo us 46746.00 2337.30 85246.02 4262.30tianping liu-biutee store 808.65 1000.00tianshui wang-over the hillsxin huang-angnya nails 566.37 1000.00 1618.2xinqitong 2471.25 1000.00 1245.51 1000.00xiulin dai-yokilly beauty 15376.76 1000.00 32903.4xushujun-kang yue trading0 8150.18 1000.00yao angela-honey joy beauty & health 20430.00 1021.50 719.10 1000.00 209.70 1000.00

zhang zhaoqin-juanzhizong 8765.46 1000.00zhouyanghao 642.06 1000.00 1115.00 1000.00zhujunjie-hzsbass store

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID 332
Defaulting Defendant

alyerannbay ltdaoshangaudab storebarney/skd-usbeautychendeskotienzo-missdeer-usgao yongxue-yongusuusgu bingding-eyxformulahonosonjackshen-mooerca usjinhua cao-ztl fashionlisihua-jiasheng directmagic c-moibase gel polishnjqianrounanjingqianroubuliaoyouxiangongsiqiaocrystal-shiny crystalsubay-subay directtangsanyuan batatuo ustianping liu-biutee storetianshui wang-over the hillsxin huang-angnya nailsxinqitongxiulin dai-yokilly beautyxushujun-kang yue trading0yao angela-honey joy beauty & healthzhang zhaoqin-juanzhizongzhouyanghaozhujunjie-hzsbass store

2022 Q2 Royalty

2022 Q4 Gross Profits

2022 Q4 Royalty

2023 Q1 Gross Profits

2023 Q1 Royalty

2023 Q2 Gross Profits 

2023 Q2 Royalty 

2023 Q4 Gross Profits 

2023 Q4 Royalty Total 

$ $ 

1198.46 7915.05 1000.00 13473.00 1000.00 $ 

1000.00 17630.74 1000.00 14108.87 1000.00 $ 

$ 

239.76 1000.00 $ 

2085.39 1000.00 23830.41 1191.52 $ 

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

50970.48 2548.52 21644.91 1082.25 $ 

$ $ $ 

5489.64 1000.00 $ 

1000.00 2923.03 1000.00 4954.64 1000.00 $ 

$ 

1130.04 28183.68 1409.18 41707.80 2085.39 $ 

$ 

800.10 1000.00 $ 

$ $ 

19193.25 1000.00 $ 

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:22-cv-00549-M Document 127 Filed 08/02/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID 33