Display Technologies, LLC v. Mocacare Corp.

Background

Display Technologies, LLC sued Mocacare Corp. under the federal patent statute for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,300,723, titled “Enabling Social Interactive Wireless Communications.” The complaint alleged that Mocacare’s MOCACuff heartrate and blood pressure monitor, which connects to a smartphone through Bluetooth and the MOCACARE app, infringed the patent.

Mocacare was served with the summons and complaint but did not answer, appear, or otherwise defend the case. The clerk entered default, and Display Technologies moved for default judgment.

Why the Court Granted Default Judgment

Before entering default judgment, the court confirmed that it had federal-question jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over Mocacare, and proper venue. The court evaluated the factors commonly used to decide whether default judgment is appropriate, including prejudice to the plaintiff, the strength and sufficiency of the claim, the amount at stake, the likelihood of a factual dispute, excusable neglect, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits.

The court found that Display Technologies had adequately pleaded patent infringement by alleging ownership of the patent, identifying Mocacare, identifying the patent, describing how Mocacare allegedly infringed it, and citing the relevant patent-law provision. Because Mocacare had not appeared or defended the action, the court treated the complaint’s liability-related factual allegations as true for purposes of the default judgment decision. The court concluded that the factors supported default judgment and granted Display Technologies’ motion.

Damages, Fees, and Costs

Display Technologies proposed two reasonable-royalty calculations. The court rejected the first, which sought $93,750 based on assumptions about Mocacare’s annual revenue, the percentage attributable to allegedly infringing products, and the period of sales. The court found that calculation too speculative.

The court accepted the alternative calculation based on prior licenses for the patent. Those licenses ranged from $10,000 to $57,500, with an average payment of $22,166.67. The court therefore granted Display Technologies $22,166.67 as a reasonable royalty.

The court denied Display Technologies’ request for attorney fees because the plaintiff provided no evidence that the case involved exceptional circumstances required for such an award. The court granted the request for costs, but Display Technologies had not submitted evidence supporting the amount. The court ordered it to file supplemental cost evidence within seven days, before judgment is entered.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila granted the motion for default judgment, granted $22,166.67 in reasonable-royalty damages, denied attorney fees, and granted costs subject to later supporting evidence.