Studio 010, Inc. v. Digital Cashflow LLC et al

Filing 131

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 129 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Signed by U.S. District Judge David G Estudillo.(CJS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 STUDIO 010 INC, 11 12 v. 13 CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01018-DGE Plaintiff, DIGITAL CASHFLOW LLC et al., 14 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 129) Defendants. 15 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for entry of final judgment. 1 (Dkt. No. 129.) 18 A judgment “includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment 19 should not include recitals of pleadings, a master’s report, or a record of prior proceedings.” 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). On October 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part 21 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (Dkt. No. 116.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 22 23 24 1 On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a corrected version of its request. (Dkt. No. 130.) The Court will cite to this version of Plaintiff’s request throughout this order. ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 129) - 1 1 with respect to five causes of action. (Id. at 25.) Relevant here, the Court found Plaintiff was 2 entitled to declaratory judgment as to the invalidity of U.S. Patent Number 10,525,191 (“the ‘191 3 patent”) and the non-infringement of the ‘191 patent. (Id.) The Court also granted default 4 judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants infringed Plaintiff’s registered 5 trademark. (Id.) The Court awarded Plaintiff $211,051.00 in lost profits, plus an additional 6 $25,000.00 as treble damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, for a total of 7 $236,051.00. (Id.) The Court issued a judgment the same day (Dkt. No. 117) and later denied 8 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 126.) On December 4, 2023, the Clerk granted 9 Plaintiff’s motion for a bill of costs in the uncontested amount of $1,304.25. (Dkt. No. 124.) On 10 May 29, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, awarding Plaintiff a 11 total of $119,951.11. (Dkt. No. 127 at 8.) 12 The order granting a default judgment, the order on Plaintiff’s bill of costs, and the order 13 granting judgment previously entered in this case are all orders from which an appeal lies. 14 Notwithstanding, Plaintiff submits a proposed “final” judgment (Dkt. No. 130-1) without 15 offering any authority supporting its entry or the need for a “final” judgment. 16 The proposed final judgment also appears to seek relief not previously requested or 17 granted. First, the proposed final judgment would grant injunctive relief not included in the 18 Court’s order on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The proposed judgment would 19 permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing any claim of the ‘191 patent against any party. 20 (Dkt. No. 130-1 at 2.) The judgment would similarly enjoin Defendants from advertising or 21 selling products related to earwax removal using Plaintiff’s trademarks. (Id.) 22 23 The Court did not grant injunctive relief and “[a] plaintiff is not automatically entitled to an injunction simply because it proves its affirmative claims.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 24 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 129) - 2 1 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Rather, “[a]n injunction is a drastic and 2 extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. 3 Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010); see also Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 4 847 F.2d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he grant of injunctive relief is not a ministerial act 5 flowing as a matter of course.”). Granting a permanent injunction is “an act of equitable 6 discretion” and a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction “must satisfy a four-factor test before a 7 court may grant such relief.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 8 9 Plaintiff sought injunctive relief early in this case. On July 2, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 12.) On August 6, 2020, the 10 Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction as moot pursuant to a stipulation by 11 the parties under which Defendants agreed not to enforce the ‘191 patent against Plaintiff’s 12 products pending the resolution of this lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 29.) While this suit is now over, 13 Plaintiff has not filed a new motion for injunctive relief and the instant motion presents no 14 evidence or argument that would justify granting one. 15 Second, Plaintiff’s proposed judgment requires Defendants to destroy all products and 16 advertising in their possession which infringe Plaintiff’s registered trademark. (Dkt. No. 130-1 17 at 2.) The Lanham Act provides that the Court may order an infringing defendant to “deliver[ ] 18 up and destroy[ ]” all infringing “labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and 19 advertisements in the possession of the defendant.” 15 U.S.C. § 1118. “Under 15 U.S.C. § 1118, 20 the decision whether to enter a destruction order is left to the court's discretion.” Daimler AG v. 21 A-Z Wheels LLC, 498 F. Supp. 3d 1282, 1295 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (collecting cases). However, the 22 Court has not issued an injunction to this effect and Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or 23 argument supporting its entitlement to this remedy. 24 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 129) - 3 1 2 3 4 To the extent Plaintiff seeks additional remedies, Plaintiff must file a motion setting forth supporting evidence and arguments. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an entry of final judgment (Dkt. No. 129) is DENIED. 5 6 7 8 9 Dated this 8th day of July, 2024. A David G. Estudillo United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 129) - 4

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?