You are on page 1of 14

Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 55

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, WESTERN DIVISION

KUSTOM CYCLES, INC., et al., CASE NO: 5:18-cv-05024-JLV

Plaintiffs, CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY L. VIKEN

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DANETA WOLLMANN

DRAGONFLY CYCLE CONCEPTS, PLAINTIFFS’


LLC, et al., MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), Plaintiffs KUSTOM CYCLES,

INC., dba KLOCK WERKS KUSTOM CYCLES (“KLOCK WERKS”) and BRIAN KLOCK

hereby request that the Court enter Default Judgment against Defendants DRAGONFLY

CYCLE CONCEPTS, LLC and KEVIN MICHAEL MARTIN in the amount of $33,032.63,

including attorneys’ fees and costs, and issue a permanent injunction against Defendants.

Despite having been duly served with a summons and a copy of the Complaint in this action,

Defendants have failed to answer, move, plead, or otherwise respond. The Clerk entered a

default against Defendants on July 11, 2018. See Clerk’s Entry of Default [ECF No. 10.]

Accordingly, all of the assertions in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are taken as true and admitted, and

Plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment as a matter of law. The reasons for this Motion and

Plaintiffs’ requested relief are set forth more fully in the attached Memorandum in Support.

Additionally, Plaintiffs are submitting Declarations of T. Earl LeVere, Esq., and Richard J.

Rylance, II, Esq., in support of this Motion, as well as a proposed entry granting the requested

relief.

CO\5990306.5
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 56

Dated: December 20, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard J. Rylance, II


Richard J. Rylance, II (SD Bar No. 3911)
John S. Theeler (SD Bar No. 1697)
MorganTheeler LLP
1718 North Sanborn Boulevard
Mitchell, SD 57301
rjrylance@morgantheeler.com
jtheeler@morgantheeler.com
Tel: (605) 996-5588
Fax: (605) 996-6129
Counsel for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

T. Earl LeVere (Ohio Bar No. 0063515)


Ice Miller LLP
250 West Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Email: Earl.LeVere@IceMiller.com
Tel: (614) 462-1095
Fax: (614) 228-4847

2
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 57

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action against Defendants DRAGONFLY CYCLE

CONCEPTS, LLC, and KEVIN MICHAEL MARTIN (collectively, “DRAGONFLY”) on April

9, 2018. See Complaint [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts a claim for design patent

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. Id. Plaintiffs perfected service of the Summons and

Complaint upon Defendants on June 19, 2018, via personal, hand-delivery service. See

Affidavits of Service [ECF Nos. 7-8].

Rule 12(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part: “A

defendant must serve an answer . . . within 21 days after being served with the summons and

complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Per Rule 12(a)(1)(A), July 10, 2018, was the deadline

for Defendants to move or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The Defendants

failed to answer or otherwise defend by that date.

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has
failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or
otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The Clerk, upon Plaintiffs’ application (see Plaintiffs’ Application for

Entry of Default Against Defendants [ECF No. 9]), duly entered default against Defendants on

July 11, 2018 (see Clerk’s Entry of Default [ECF No. 10]). Upon entry of Defendants’ default,

pursuant to Rule 55, Plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment as a matter of law against

Defendants.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

A. Plaintiffs’ ‘275 Patent

Plaintiff KUSTOM CYCLES, INC., dba KLOCK WERKS KUSTOM CYCLES

CO\5990306.5
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 58

(“KLOCK WERKS”) is in the business of customizing motorcycles and designing and

manufacturing custom parts and accessories for motorcycles, and has done so for more than two

decades. Complaint at ¶¶ 5, 8 [ECF No. 1]. KLOCK WERKS is the exclusive licensee of U.S.

Patent No. D586,275 (“the ‘275 Patent”). Id. Plaintiff BRIAN KLOCK is the president,

founder, and CEO of KLOCK WERKS. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 8. In addition, BRIAN KLOCK is also the

inventor and owner of the ‘275 Patent. Id. at ¶ 6. Mr. Klock is well-known internationally for

his creative and innovative motorcycles and component designs. Id. at ¶ 9.

This notoriety comes, in part, from Plaintiffs’ winning the nationally televised 2006

Discovery Channel Biker Build Off with their customized “World’s Fastest Bagger” motorcycle.

Id. That winning motorcycle was the inspiration for KLOCK WERKS’ original FLARE®

windshield, which KLOCK WERKS later expanded into its series of patented FLARE®

windshields, including the design claimed in the ‘275 Patent. Id.

The FLARE® windshields became an immediate success and have sold in excess of one-

hundred thousand (100,000) units since their debut. Id. at ¶ 10. In order to boost sales, KLOCK

WERKS has advertised the FLARE® windshield line in numerous national and international

magazines, including Hot Bike, Hot Bike Baggers, American Baggers, Cycle Sources, American

Iron, Iron Works, Christian Motorsports Illustrated, Motor Market Magazine, as well as other

publications. Id. Some of the same magazines have published articles discussing FLARE®

windshields, and several industry websites have published product reviews about FLARE®

windshields. The FLARE® windshields have won countless awards, including being touted as

one of the “Best Products” at the 2008 V-Twin Expo. Id. at ¶ 11.

The ‘275 Patent, entitled FLARED WINDSHIELD FOR A MOTORCYCLE, was duly

and legally issued for one model of the FLARE® windshield on February 10, 2009, naming

2
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 59

BRIAN KLOCK as the inventor. Id. at ¶ 12, Ex. 1. KLOCK WERKS has commercialized the

design of the ‘275 Patent as KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5” FLARE® windshield for “batwing fairings”

for motorcycles, generally, and for FHL model Harley-Davidson motorcycles in particular. Id. at

¶ 13.

B. Defendants’ Infringing Acts

Defendants DRAGONFLY CYCLE CONCEPTS, LLC and KEVIN MICHAEL

MARTIN (collectively, “DRAGONFLY”) were previously authorized dealers of KLOCK

WERKS’ commercial embodiment of the ‘275 Patent, namely, the KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5”

FLARE® windshield for batwing fairings. Id. at ¶ 23, Ex. 3. DRAGONFLY has infringed, and

continues to infringe, the ‘275 Patent by copying KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5” FLARE® windshield to

create and sell the DRAGONFLY 6.5” FLIP-OUT Batwing windshield. Id. at ¶¶ 15-17.

DRAGONFLY’s FLIP-OUT Batwing windshield embodies the design claimed in the ‘275

Patent, or a colorable imitation thereof. Id. at ¶ 18.

On or around August 12, 2017, a KLOCK WERKS’ representative purchased a sample of

DRAGONFLY’s 6.5” FLIP-OUT Batwing windshield in person from DRAGONFLY’s staff in

Sturgis, South Dakota. Id. at ¶ 19. A side-by-side comparison of DRAGONFLY’s infringing

product to the ‘275 Patent and to KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5” FLARE® windshield plainly

demonstrates that DRAGONFLY’s infringing design is virtually indistinguishable from KLOCK

WERKS’ patented design. See, id. at ¶¶ 21, 24 and accompanying tables, copies of which are

attached hereto for the Court’s reference as Exhibit 1. Because DRAGONFLY has a history of

longstanding sales of KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5” FLARE® windshield—the commercial

embodiment of the ‘275 Patent—DRAGONFLY knew, or reasonably should have known, of the

existence of the ‘275 Patent before they designed and released their 6.5” FLIP-OUT Batwing

windshield in flagrant and willful disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Id. at ¶ 25.


3
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 60

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Standard for Default Judgment.

When a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend against a pleading, entry of default

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) must precede grant of a default judgment under

Rule 55(b). Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998). Once an entry

of default is entered by the clerk, a party may then move a court to enter the default judgment.

Journey Grp. Cos. v. Sioux Falls Constr., LLC, No. CV-15-4125, 2017 WL 1376369 at *2

(D.S.D. Apr. 12, 2017).

A defendant who has defaulted is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded allegations

in the complaint. Id. at *3 (quoting Taylor v. City of Ballwin, 859 F.2d 1330, 1333 n.7 (8th Cir.

1988)). Therefore, factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true when determining

whether default judgment is warranted. Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818

(8th Cir. 2001); Hydreon Corp. v. JC Bros., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01917, 2016 WL 6826185, *7

(D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2016) (Noting that “so long as the complaint alleges sufficient facts to

establish liability, those fact are to be taken as true in a default judgment motion” and holding

that “[t]here is no question that the complaint adequately alleges willful patent infringement”)

Here, Defendants were properly served with notice of these proceedings and failed to

plead or otherwise defend in response thereto. See Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Default

Against Defendants [ECF No. 9]; Clerk’s Entry of Default [ECF No. 10]. Defendants’ failure to

respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint or Plaintiffs’ application for entry of default demonstrates that

Defendants have no intention of defending this action. Defendants have therefore conceded the

truth of the factual allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

As such, and as set forth below, the Defendants’ liability for patent infringement is

established pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs

4
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 61

respectfully request that this Court grant its Motion for Default Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.

55(b)(2) against Defendants and enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor as follows:

a. Adjudging that Defendants have infringed the ‘275 Patent, jointly and severally,

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);

b. Granting an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant KEVIN MICHAEL

MARTIN and Defendant DRAGONFLY CYCLE CONCEPTS, LLC, as well as its owners, and

the employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, and

assigns of either Defendant, as well as all of those in active concert with or participation with any

of the foregoing persons or entities, from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or

inducing infringement of the ‘275 Patent;

c. Ordering Defendants to pay the statutory minimum damages of $250 per

infringement, trebled to $750, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289;

d. Declaring this case exceptional and awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’

fees in the amount of $31,757.63 (see Dec. of LeVere (Ex. 2 hereto); Dec. of Rylance (Ex. 3

hereto), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

e. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable costs in the amount of $525.00 (see Dec. of

Rylance (Ex. 3 hereto)).

B. The Allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as Admitted by Defendants,


Establish that Defendants Are Liable for Willful Patent Infringement.

The facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and described above, which are now deemed

true as a matter of law, establish Plaintiffs’ claims of willful patent infringement.

35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and (b) provide that:

(a) except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority


makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
5
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 62

(b) whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an


infringer.

Based on the factual allegations in the Complaint—which the Court must now accept as true—

Plaintiffs own the ‘275 Patent. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the ‘275

Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the

design covered by the ‘275 Patent. Complaint at ¶ 38. Defendants do not have a license or

permission to manufacture products embodying the design claimed in the ‘275 Patent. Id. at ¶

39.

Defendants’ aforesaid conduct in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) has injured Plaintiffs

and will cause Plaintiffs further irreparable injury and damage in the future unless and until

Defendants are enjoined from continuing to infringe the ‘275 Patent. The comparison tables

embedded throughout the Complaint indisputably show that the Defendants’ product infringes,

and is virtually indistinguishable from, the design shown and claimed in the ‘275 Patent. Id. at

PageID #9-10, 12-13; see also, Ex. 1 hereto.

C. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Permanent Injunctive Relief.

In order to obtain a permanent injunction under the Patent Act, a plaintiff must

demonstrate:

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law,
such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,
considering the balance of the hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a
remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
disserved by a permanent injunction.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). All of the factors are present

here, warranting a permanent injunction.

First, Plaintiffs have suffered an irreparable injury. Plaintiffs incurred the time, expense,

and effort of developing the design in the ‘275 Patent and KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5” FLARE®
6
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 63

windshield. Plaintiffs specifically obtained a patent on this design as protection against

infringement like the Defendants’. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered

irreparably in terms of significant harm to Plaintiffs’ goodwill within the motorcycle industry

and by being deprived of their ability to control the use and commercial exploitation of their

patented design. Complaint at ¶ 27. If this Court fails to enjoin the Defendants, Defendants will

be able to continue to sell the infringing FLIP-OUT Batwing windshield, which will serve to

decrease Plaintiffs’ sales and market share as well as Plaintiffs’ hard-earned reputation for

innovation in motorcycle design. See, Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed.

Cir. 2008) (“Adding a new competitor to the market may create an irreparable harm . . . .”). See

also, Zen Design Group Ltd. v. Clint, No. 08-cv-14309, 2009 WL 4050247, *5 (E.D. Mich. Nov.

23, 2009) (entering a default judgment of patent infringement and finding irreparable harm

where the infringement has caused, or is likely to cause, irreparable price erosion as well as

injury to the patentee’s goodwill in the market); Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes, 455 F. Supp.

2d 978, 982 (W.D. Tenn. 2006) (finding irreparable harm when a patentee “loses market share or

its reputation for innovation”).

Second, monetary damages are inadequate to compensate Plaintiffs against future

infringement. The “simple fact that one could, if pressed, compute a money damages award does

not always preclude a finding of irreparable harm.” Polyform A.G.P., Inc. v. Xtreme Insulation

Techs, LLC, No. CV 17-735, 2017 WL 4564719, *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 11, 2017) (quoting Celsis In

Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

Here, Defendants’ willful infringement of the ‘275 Patent and their failure even to

participate in this litigation demonstrates the likelihood that they will continue to infringe absent

equitable relief by this Court. Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., 23 F.3d 1345, 1349 (8th Cir.

7
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 64

1994) (history of infringement and significant threat of future infringement supports injunctive

relief). Moreover, “[r]elief in the form of monetary damages alone would not meet the ends of

justice here because this remedy would allow the infringement to continue.” FURminator, Inc.

v. Kim Laube & Co., No. 4:08CV00367, 2011 WL 1226944, *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2011)

(quoting Smith & Nephew, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 984) (granting permanent injunction for patent

infringement because monetary damages are not an adequate remedy against future infringement

because the principal value of a patent is its statutory right to exclude others from practicing

what is contained therein).

Third, the balance of the hardships weighs in favor of an injunction. Defendants have

infringed Plaintiffs’ patent rights with impunity. Enjoining Defendants from selling the

infringing FLIP-OUT Batwing windshield—which, again, almost exactly replicates the

commercial embodiment of Plaintiffs’ ‘275 Patent (which Defendants were fully aware of and

offered for sale as an authorized dealer)—would not impermissibly harm Defendants. Hydreon

Corp., 2016 WL 6826158 at *9 (finding balance of hardships favored injunctive relief because

“there is no conceivable harm to Defendant” because plaintiff only sought to enjoin the sale of

infringing products); see also, FURminator, 2011 WL 1226944 at *3 (finding balance of

hardships weighed in favor of injunctive relief, in part, because defendant only began selling the

infringing product after it became aware of plaintiff’s patented product).

Finally, the public interest will not be harmed by preventing Defendants from selling

their infringing design. “The public maintains an interest in protecting the rights of patent

holders, and injunctions serve that interest.” FURminator, 2011 WL 1226944 at *3 (quoting

Smith & Nephew, 466 F. Supp. 2d at 985); Hydreon Corp., 2016 WL 6826158 at *9 (granting

8
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 65

injunctive relief on default judgment in patent infringement action because there is a “significant

benefit to the public and plaintiff by protecting plaintiff’s intellectual property rights”).

All four eBay factors are present here and weigh in favor of equitable relief. As such,

Plaintiffs request that this Court grant an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant KEVIN

MICHAEL MARTIN and Defendant DRAGONFLY CYCLE CONCEPTS LLC, as well as the

owners, employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, and

assigns of either of them, and all of those in active concert with or participation with any of the

foregoing persons or entities from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or

inducing infringement of the ‘275 Patent.

D. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Monetary Damages.

Plaintiffs apply to this Court to enter a default judgment award of $750 in statutory

minimum and enhanced damages against Defendants. 35 U.S.C. § 289 provides that when an

individual impermissibly uses a patented design in infringing article, that individual is “liable to

the owner to the full extent of his total profit, but not less than $250 . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Because Defendants failed to appear and defend this action, and therefore failed to

participate in discovery, Plaintiffs do not have access to information regarding Defendants’

infringing sales or the profits Defendants derived therefrom. Thus, Plaintiffs are only requesting

the minimum statutory award of $250 for infringement of the ‘275 Patent. See, Amini Innovation

Corp. v. KTY Intern. Mktg, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (awarding statutory

minimum damages of $250 per each of the design patents infringed by the defendant on default

judgment because plaintiff did not have access to defendant’s information to show actual

damages). Moreover, because this case involves allegations—now deemed true—concerning

willful infringement, this Court should award enhanced damages of three times the statutory

minimum requested under 35 U.S.C. § 284, for a total of $750. See, Halo Electronics, Inc. v.
9
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 66

Pulse Electronics, Inc., 831 F.3d 1369, 1381 (Fed Cir. 2016) (“the subjective willfulness of a

patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages” under § 284).

E. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Recover Their Costs and Attorneys’ Fees.

The Patent Act permits the award of attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. §

285. An exceptional case is “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the

substantive strength of a party’s litigation position (considering both the governing law and the

facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane Fitness,

LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). This determination is made on a

case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances, with “no precise rule or formula

for making these determinations . . . .” Id. (quoting Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534

(1994)).

In cases involving default judgment, “a pleading that infringement was willful is

sufficient” to find an exceptional case under Octane Fitness. See, Ceiva Logic, Inc. v. Frame

Media, Inc., No. SACV 08-00636-JVS, 2014 WL 7338840 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014);

Rubbermaid Commercial Prod., LLC v. Tr. Commercial Prod., No. 2:13-CV-02144-GMN, 2014

WL 4987878, at *6 (D. Nev. Aug. 22, 2014) (“In the context of default, ‘when a complaint

alleges willful infringement and the court subsequently enters default judgment, the court must

find for the purpose of attorneys' fees that the infringement was willful.’”). In cases of “obvious

copying and egregious infringement” together with failure to respond to the complaint so that all

factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true, an award of attorney fees is justified. See,

Hydreon Corp., 2016 WL 6826158 at * 9-10 (awarding attorneys’ fees in patent action on

default judgment). Moreover, plaintiffs who have been awarded default judgment are entitled to

recover costs expended in the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Monsanto Co. v. Hargrove,

No. 4:09-cv-1628, 2011 WL 5330674, *4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2011). Under D.S.D. Civ. LR
10
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 67

54.1(B), “the clerk of court may tax costs as a matter of course without notice” in a default

judgment case.

As stated above and deemed true from the Complaint, Defendants’ infringing acts are

deliberate and willful. Defendants were well-aware of Plaintiffs’ ‘275 Patent and its commercial

embodiment, the KLOCK WERKS’ 6.5” FLARE® windshield, because Defendants were an

authorized dealer of, and actually sold, the product. At no time did Defendants have any

reasonable basis for believing they had the right to copy the ‘275 Patent or Plaintiffs’ product.

Complaint at ¶¶ 23, 26, 40. Moreover, Defendants failed to appear and defend this action,

thereby utterly disregarding the judicial process.

Accordingly, this is an exceptional case under 25 U.S.C. § 285, and Plaintiffs are entitled

to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred. These fees and costs total

$322,282.63, as set forth in the declarations of counsel filed herewith. See Dec. of LeVere (Ex. 2

hereto); Dec. of Rylance (Ex. 3 hereto).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, and by application

of governing law, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment in their favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Default

Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) against Defendants and enter judgment in Plaintiffs’

favor as follows:

a. Adjudging that Defendants have infringed the ‘275 Patent, jointly and severally,

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);

b. Granting an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant KEVIN MICHAEL

MARTIN and Defendant DRAGONFLY CYCLE CONCEPTS, LLC, as well as its owners, and

the employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, and
11
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Case 5:18-cv-05024-JLV Document 11 Filed 12/20/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 68

assigns of either Defendant, as well as all of those in active concert with or participation with any

of the foregoing persons or entities from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or

inducing infringement of the ‘275 Patent;

c. Ordering Defendants to pay the statutory minimum damages of $250 per

infringement, trebled to $750, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289;

d. Declaring this case exceptional and awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’

fees in the amount of $31,757.63, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

e. Awarding Plaintiffs Reasonable costs in the amount of $525.00.

Dated: December 20, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard J. Rylance, II


Richard J. Rylance, II (SD Bar No. 3911)
John S. Theeler (SD Bar No. 1697)
MorganTheeler LLP
1718 North Sanborn Boulevard
Mitchell, SD 57301
rjrylance@morgantheeler.com
jtheeler@morgantheeler.com
Tel: (605) 996-5588
Fax: (605) 996-6129
Counsel for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

T. Earl LeVere (Ohio Bar No. 0063515)


Ice Miller LLP
250 West Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Email: Earl.LeVere@IceMiller.com
Tel: (614) 462-1095
Fax: (614) 228-4847

12
CO\5990306.5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT