Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Polytree (NDGa Dec 20, 2010)

Polytree (NDGa Dec 20, 2010)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 131 |Likes:
Published by dsb001

More info:

Published by: dsb001 on Dec 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/01/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAATLANTA DIVISIONPOLYTREE (H.K.) CO., LTD. andCINDEX HOLDINGS LIMITED,Plaintiffs,
 
v.
 
1:09-cv-03377-WSD
 
FORESTS MANUFACTURING,LTD.,
 
Defendant.
 
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Polytree (H.K.) Co., Ltd.’s andCindex Holdings Limited’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for DefaultJudgment [17], Motion to File the Motion for Default Judgment Under Seal [18],and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for its Brief in Support of the Motionfor Default Judgment [15]. Plaintiffs are affiliated entities, headquartered in HongKong. (Compl. 9).
I.
 
BACKGROUND
This case arises from Defendant’s alleged infringement of Plaintiffs’ patentsand false marking of Defendant’s products with Plaintiffs’ patent numbers.Plaintiff Polytree owns U.S. Patent No. 6,572,068 (“the ‘068 Patent”) entitled
 
 
2“Tree Stand.” Plaintiff Cindex owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,527,010 (“the ‘010Patent”), entitled “Stand for Supporting an Elongate Object,” and 5,869,151 (“the‘151 patent”), entitled “Stand.”Defendant made, used, offered for sale, and sold Christmas tree stands in theUnited States that infringe all three of Plaintiffs’ Patents. (Compl. ¶ 19.)Defendant also marked its Christmas tree stands, which it made, offered for sale,and sold in the United States, with the ‘010 and ‘151 patents. (Compl. ¶ 20, Ex.D.)
1
Defendant did not seek or obtain permission from Plaintiffs to use theirpatents. One of the retailers to whom Defendant sold its falsely marked productswas Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which is located at 890 Cobb Place Boulevard inKennesaw, Georgia. (Compl. ¶ 29); (Morgan Decl., Ex. 13.) Defendant’s productwith item number F099-09-T6091 (A) is one of the products it sells that infringeson Plaintiffs’ patents and is falsely marked with the ‘010 and ‘151 patents.(Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.)On September 21, 2009, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent to Defendant a letterdemanding that it cease infringing Plaintiffs’ patents and cease marking itsproducts with the ‘010 and ‘151 patent numbers. (Morgan Decl., Ex. 3.) OnOctober 19, 2009, Defendant’s counsel responded by e-mail, stating that Defendant
1
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is continuing to infringe their patents and tofalsely mark its products with Plaintiffs’ Patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.)
 
 
3“has no knowledge that [its product] involves any patent rights belonging to”Plaintiffs. (Morgan Decl., Ex. 5.) Defendant’s counsel contended that Defendant“was warranted and has been expressly authorized” by the “Assignee” of thepatents to use them in connection with Defendant’s manufacture and sale of Christmas tree stands. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel promised that Defendant woulddestroy its remaining inventory of Christmas tree stands and would no longer sellor distribute them. (Id.)On October 20, 2009, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent another letter requesting thatDefendant provide documents identifying how many tree stands have been sold tocustomers in the United States, the names of these customers, the dates of the sales,and how much Defendant charged for the stands sold. (Morgan Decl., Ex. 6.)Plaintiffs’ counsel asked for a response within five days. As of November 5, 2009,Defendant’s counsel had not responded. On that same day, Plaintiffs’ counsel sentanother letter to counsel for Defendant, reiterating its request for documents andinforming Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiffs planned on pursuing legal action if they did not hear from Defendant’s counsel by November 13, 2009. (MorganDecl., Ex. 7.) On November 25, 2009, Plaintiffs’ counsel, once more, sent a letterrepeating its request for information and announcing their concern that Defendantwas continuing to infringe Plaintiffs’ patents. (Morgan Decl., Ex. 8.) Plaintiffs’

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->