Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 16, 2024

Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co., Ltd.

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:22-cv-04944
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Intellectual PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Xiamen Zhaozhao v. Ningbo Jiangbei, Judge Freeman adopted the recommendation and granted default judgment after finding jurisdiction, service, and damages notice adequate.

Who this affects

Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd., whose motion for default judgment was granted, and Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co., Ltd., which did not object to the recommendation.

What happened

In Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co., Ltd., the plaintiff sought default judgment in a patent-infringement case. The defendant did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that default judgment be entered.

The court agreed that it had jurisdiction, that service of process was adequate, and that default judgment was warranted under the applicable factors. The court also concluded that the complaint and motion gave the defendant sufficient notice of the damages sought, including a requested $8,243 reasonable royalty.

Judge Beth Freeman adopted the recommendation in full and granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The order does not separately state in its final directives whether $8,243 was formally awarded.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co., Ltd. · No. 5:22-cv-04944
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
July 16, 2024

Background

Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. filed a patent-infringement action against Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co., Ltd. Zhaozhao moved for default judgment. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse issued a report and recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. The recommendation was served on Ningbo by mail on July 1, 2024. Ningbo did not file an objection within the allowed 14 days and had not filed one by the time of the order.

Court’s Analysis

The court found the report and recommendation correct, well reasoned, and thorough. It agreed that jurisdiction was proper, service of process was adequate, and default judgment was warranted after considering the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool.

The court separately addressed damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), which generally prevents a default judgment from exceeding the amount demanded in the pleadings. Zhaozhao’s complaint did not identify a specific dollar amount; it requested damages to be determined by a jury to compensate it for Ningbo’s alleged patent infringement. The court concluded that this request gave Ningbo reasonable notice that damages would be sought at trial.

In its default-judgment motion, Zhaozhao identified $8,243 as the damages sought in the form of a reasonable royalty, a recognized measure of patent-infringement damages. Zhaozhao mailed the motion to Ningbo. The court concluded that the complaint and motion together gave Ningbo sufficient notice of the amount at issue and that the requested damages complied with Rule 54(c).

Disposition

Judge Beth Freeman ordered that the report and recommendation be adopted in full and that Zhaozhao’s motion for default judgment be granted. The final directives do not separately state whether the court formally entered an $8,243 damages award.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.