Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 21, 2023

Voltstar Technologies, Inc. v. Mizco International, Inc.

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:23-cv-05482
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Intellectual PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Voltstar v. Mizco, Judge Hellerstein entered default judgment for patent infringement, granted permanent injunctions, and referred damages for further hearings.

Who this affects

Voltstar received a liability judgment and permanent injunctions against Mizco and the specified related parties; the amount of damages remained unresolved and was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.

What happened

In Voltstar Technologies, Inc. v. Mizco International, Inc., the court considered Voltstar’s request for a final default judgment. Mizco was properly served, did not file an answer or motion, and had a default entered by the clerk.

The court found Mizco liable for directly infringing three Voltstar patents. It granted Voltstar permanent injunctions barring Mizco and specified related parties from directly or indirectly infringing those patents for the life of each patent.

The court found Voltstar’s claimed damages too speculative and referred damages issues to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for further hearings. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered that the injunctions take effect immediately and be supported by money damages when determined.

The detailed version

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

Case
Voltstar Technologies, Inc. v. Mizco International, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05482
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Nov. 21, 2023

Background

Voltstar Technologies, Inc. moved for final default judgment against Mizco International, Inc. The court found that Mizco was properly served through its registered agent. Mizco did not file an answer, motion, or other appearance, and the clerk entered default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).

Liability

The court explained that a default admits the well-pleaded allegations, but the court still must determine whether those allegations establish liability as a matter of law. Based on the complaint and motion papers, the court found that the uncontested allegations established Mizco’s liability for:

- Count I: direct infringement of United States Patent Number RE 48,794 E under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); - Count II: direct infringement of United States Patent Number 7,910,833 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); and - Count III: direct infringement of United States Patent Number 7,960,648 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

The court entered judgment in favor of Voltstar and against Mizco on those causes of action.

Relief

The court found Voltstar’s asserted damages too speculative. It referred the issue of Voltstar’s entitlement to damages to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for further hearings and determinations; the opinion did not set a damages amount.

The court granted Voltstar’s requests for permanent injunctive relief for the life of each of the three patents. The injunctions prohibit Mizco, its employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, and those acting in active concert or participation with Mizco from directly or indirectly infringing, or assisting in infringement of, the relevant patent.

Disposition

The default judgment was entered with the injunctions effective immediately. The judgment is to be supported by money damages when the magistrate judge determines them. The classification is procedural because the judgment followed Mizco’s failure to appear and was entered by default rather than after an adversarial trial or summary-judgment decision.

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.