Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Taridium, LLC

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons stated in the enclosed Memorandum and Order, the court finds no clear error in Judge Gold's Report and Recommendation 55 , and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation a s the opinion of the court. Judgment shall be entered for plaintiff as follows: (i) $75,000, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 3.25%, compounded annually, from July 13, 2010 to the date of final judgment; and (ii) $213.67 in costs. The Clerk of Court is further respectfully requested to mail a copy of the judgment and this Order to defendant, note service on the docket, and close this case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/9/2014. (Tsai, Denise)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
IPVX PATENT HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

-against12-CV-5251 (KAM)(SMG)
TARIDIUM LLC,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On November 11, 2011, Klausner Technologies, Inc.
(“Klausner”) commenced this patent infringement case against
defendant Taridium, LLC (“Taridium” or “defendant”) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Klausner alleged that defendant had infringed upon its patent
for a “Telephone Answering Service Linking Displayed Data with
Recorded Audio Message,” Patent No. 5,572,576 (the “‘576
Patent”). 1

(See ECF No. 1, Complaint filed 11/1/11 (“Compl.”).)

The case was transferred to the Eastern District of New York on
October 19, 2012.

1

(See Docket Entry No. 1 dated 11/1/11.)

On

The objects of the ‘576 patent are to (i) “provide a telephone answering
device (‘TAD’) that allows visual identification of callers’ identities and
selective access to their linked recorded voice messages,” (ii) “provide a
link between each recorded voice message and personal information prestored
in data base memory related to that caller,” (iii) “provide a TAD that
displays a list of all caller’s identities . . . so that the user may
selectively access the voice message associated with a given caller without
having to listen to all preceding voice messages,” and (iv) provide these
services “remotely over the telephone lines.” (Compl., Ex. A, ‘576 Patent,
at 17.)

April 10, 2013, the Honorable Steven M. Gold granted Klausner’s
motion to substitute IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. (“IPVX” or
“plaintiff”) as the sole plaintiff, as Klausner’s rights in the
patent had been transferred to IPVX on May 17, 2012.

(See ECF

No. 45, Order Granting Motion to Substitute Party dated
4/10/13.)
The Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default
against defendant on May 23, 2013, because it had failed to
appear or otherwise defend this action after being served with
process.

(ECF No. 47, Entry of Default dated 5/23/13.)

On

December 3, 2013, Chief Magistrate Judge Gold ordered plaintiff
to file a motion for entry of default judgment by January 10,
2014, or he would recommend that the case be dismissed.
On January 10, 2014, plaintiff moved for entry of
default judgment against defendant.
Default Judgment filed 1/10/14.)

(ECF No. 48, Motion for

On January 13, 2014, this

court referred plaintiff’s motion for default judgment to Judge
Gold for a Report and Recommendation.

(Order dated 1/13/14.)

On August 6, 2014, Judge Gold issued a Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 55, Report and Recommendation dated 8/6/14 (“R&R”)), in
which he recommended that plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment on its patent infringement claim be granted, and that
plaintiff be awarded (i) $75,000, plus prejudgment interest at

2

the rate of 3.25%, compounded annually, from July 13, 2010 to
the date of final judgment; and (ii) costs in the amount of
$213.67.

(R&R at 11.)

In addition, Judge Gold recommended that

attorney’s fees not be awarded.

(Id. at 10-11.)

In recommending a damages award of $75,000, Judge Gold
accepted, for the purposes of the R&R, plaintiff’s assertion
that defendant’s infringement took place over approximately 3.5
years, from October 24, 2008 to March 31, 2012, the date of the
patent’s expiration.

(R&R at 5.)

Judge Gold, however, invited

plaintiff to “explain in greater detail the basis for its
assertion that Taridium began infringing on October 24, 2008”
during the statutory period for filing objections to the R&R.
(Id.)
The R&R, which was mailed to defendant on August 7,
2014 (see ECF No. 56, Affidavit of Service), notified the
parties of the right to file written objections by August 25,
2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b). (R&R at 11.)

On August 25, 2014, per

Judge Gold’s suggestion, plaintiff filed a supplement to explain
in greater detail the basis for its assertion that defendant
began infringing its patent on or about October 24, 2008.
No. 57, Supplement filed 8/25/14.)

(ECF

Specifically, plaintiff

submitted three exhibits: (1) a 2007 Taridium advertisement from

3

the Internet, in which Taridium advertised the “End-User Web
Interface” of its voicemail services, including a feature where
voice messages could be attached to emails and users could
“access their voicemail from their cellphones in the same way as
if they were using their carrier’s mailbox” (Supplement, Ex. 1);
(2) a screenshot of Taridium’s end-user web interface, from
2008, displaying four voicemail messages dated on or between
September 11, 2007, and January 29, 2008, which suggests that
individual voicemails could be accessed selectively by the user
(the same technology covered by the patent at issue)
(Supplement, Ex. 2); and (3) a Taridium advertisement, accessed
online on October 4, 2008, touting “Visual Voicemail [that]
allows you to go directly to any of your messages without
listening to the prior messages” (Supplement, Ex. 3).

Plaintiff

further notes that it does not object to the R&R and that it
“only requests that the Court award damages for a period
beginning October 24, 2008,” as contemplated by Judge Gold’s
R&R.

(Supplement at 1-2.)

objections to the R&R.

Defendant has not filed any

(See docket.)

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
§ 636(b)(1)(C).

Where no objection to the Report and

4

28 U.S.C.

Recommendation has been filed, the district court “need only
satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of
the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186,
1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations omitted)).
Upon a review of the Report and Recommendation, as
well as the additional exhibits submitted by plaintiff, and
considering that the parties have not objected to any of Chief
Magistrate Judge Gold’s thorough and well-reasoned
recommendations, the court finds no clear error in Judge Gold’s
Report and Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the
Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

5

Accordingly, judgment shall be entered for plaintiff
IPVX and against defendant Taridium as follows: (i) $75,000,
plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 3.25%, compounded
annually, from July 13, 2010 to the date of final judgment; and
(ii) $213.67 in costs.

The Clerk of Court is further

respectfully requested to mail a copy of the judgment and this
Order to defendant, note service on the docket, and close this
case.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

September 9, 2014
Brooklyn, New York
_______ ___/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

6