Chapman et al. v. Bahadori et al.

Filing 13

ORDER: The Court AGREES with Magistrate Carter's 12 Report and Recommendations. The court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge R Allan Edgar on 7/13/2010. (BJL)

Download PDF
Chapman et al. v. Bahadori et al. Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA JAMES CHAPMAN, individually and d/b/a CHAPMAN'S LT PLUS ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ) ) MO BAHADORI, individually and ) d/b/a ouratlasstore, d/b/a wesellu4less, ) d/b/a bestatlessstore, d/b/a my_atlas_store, ) d/b/a getudeals, d/b/a welike2deal, ) d/b/a onlyontheweb, and/or d/b/a ) mycaldeals, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER No. 1:09-cv-247 Edgar / Carter Plaintiff James Chapman, individually and d/b/a Chapman's LT Plus, brings this action for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. against Defendant Mo Bahadori, individually and d/b/a ouratlasstore, d/b/a wesellu4less, d/b/a bestatlessstore, d/b/a my_atlas_store, d/b/a getudeals, d/b/a welike2deal, d/b/a onlyontheweb, and/or d/b/a mycaldeals ("Defendant" or "Defendant Bahadori"). This matter is before the court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate William Carter on June 16, 2010. [Court Doc. No. 12]. No parties have filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 8, 2010 Magistrate Carter held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to this court's order [Court Doc. No. 7]. Magistrate Carter's Report and Recommendation contains several conclusions of law pertaining to the appropriate amount of damages for patent infringement, whether a permanent injunction should be issued, and whether attorneys' fees are appropriate in Dockets.Justia.com this case. Following an evidentiary hearing on the subject, Magistrate Carter determined that $47,520.00 was an appropriate amount of damages for lost profits based on Defendant Bahadori's patent infringement. Magistrate Carter further recommended that the amount of damages owed to the Plaintiff should be trebled due to Defendant's knowing, willful, and intentional infringement. The Report and Recommendation recommended a total damages award of $142,560.00. Magistrate Carter further recommended awarding Plaintiff prejudgment interest of ten percent (10%) per annum. See Wackenhut Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Guards Union of Am., Local No. 3, No. 3:08cv304, 2010 WL 1491439, at *7-8 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 12, 2010); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4714-123. Thus, Magistrate Carter made the following recommendations regarding damages: Chapman is entitled to receive prejudgment interest on the total damages award of $142,560.00 at the statutory rate of ten percent (10%) from December 15, 2009, until the date of the Court's entry of its judgment assessing damages. Chapman further is entitled to receive post-judgment interest on the total damages award from the date of the Court's entry of its judgment assessing damages until the total damages amount is paid in full, as specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. As the prevailing party, Chapman is entitled to recover all costs incurred in this lawsuit . . . . [Court Doc. No. 12]. Magistrate Carter found that attorneys' fees were not appropriate in this action, and he further recommended that Defendant Bahadori be permanently enjoined from infringing United States Letters Patent No. D593,427. This court agrees with Magistrate Carter's assessments regarding the amount of damages, the treble damage award, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and permanent injunction. The court has carefully reviewed the matter. The court AGREES with Magistrate -2- Carter's recommendation. The court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. A separate judgment will be entered. SO ORDERED. ENTER this the 13th day of July, 2010. /s/ R. Allan Edgar R. ALLAN EDGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?