Motions for Default Judgment Must Demonstrate Infringement

'In a recent opinion, Judge Jon Tigar sua sponte stayed the vast majority of a patent infringement case pending the outcome of inter partes review proceedings, and also denied a motion for default judgment that was predicated upon the Defendants’ alleged infringement of two claims not subject to the ongoing proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The opinion underscores that plaintiffs do not get a “free pass” in proving infringement, but rather must fully establish the predicate bases of a patent claim, even where a defendant has failed to make an appearance."

Thing is, the default judgment is "predicated upon the" stay. A consideration that the court, at its own discussion, moves for.... that the defendant did not even motion for. The defendant was so uninvolved, it wasn't even up to protecting its own rights.

=========================================================

"As this Order makes clear, victory is not the default outcome even where the other side doesn’t show up to contest infringement. On the contrary, patentees in the Northern District should be prepared at all times to provide details regarding the accused products and how the accused products allegedly infringe."

Amazing circumstance there....As I see it, it's not about infringement or non infringement it's about...........

Contempt of Court

e.Digital demonstrated the facts of contempt where the court protects a defendant that does not properly comply with legal proceedings.

======================================================

"Judge Tigar agreed not to stay the case with respect to those two claims, but he stayed the rest of the case. He concluded that the possibility of the claims being invalidated weighed in favor of a stay."

That is a funny twist, the default judgment is "predicated upon the" stay.

Like I commented in an earlier post:

The judge gives on consideration to e.Digital being favorable in the IPR.

The defendants performance prior will be the same after IPR... if e.Digital is successful.

=================================================

"Judge Tigar denied e.Digital’s motion without prejudice, giving it the option to submit another motion with more in-depth analysis."

Me thinks e.Digital is not going to pursue the default issue anymore. Wait the outcome of the IPR, If positive....will move on the defendant... knowing that the defendant will act the same....and it will then win its default issue. It will end up being a poke in the eye for e.Digital by the defendant. It will be a poke in the eye to the court as well.

Mean while, defendant gets to sell its goods until the IPR concludes.

I do not get the wisdom of this ruling....in any event, it makes no difference one way or the other.

doni