Rothschild Patent Imaging, LLC v. H&M Sys. Software

Full title: ROTHSCHILD PATENT IMAGING, LLC Plaintiff, v. H&M SYSTEM SOFTWARE, INC…

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Jun 2, 2023

1:22-cv-01161-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Jun. 2, 2023)

Opinion

1:22-cv-01161-NLH-AMD

06-02-2023

ROTHSCHILD PATENT IMAGING, LLC Plaintiff, v. H&M SYSTEM SOFTWARE, INC. Defendant.

Mark Aaron Kriegel, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff.

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

APPEARANCES

Mark Aaron Kriegel, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff.

OPINION & ORDER

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, Plaintiff initiated the instant action alleging one count under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,437,797 (‘797 Patent)(ECF No. 1); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has averred in its filings that the Complaint was served upon Defendant on March 31, 2022 (ECF No 52, ¶ 2); and, WHEREAS, after more than twenty-one (21) days passed without any response from Defendant, Plaintiff filed a Request for Clerk's Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 5) on July 28, 2022 and default was entered July 29, 2022; and

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 7); and

WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 8); and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel provided the court with a photocopy of an unsigned United States Postal Service Return Receipt green card to indicate that in addition to personally serving Defendant via acceptance by a random person at an address in Delaware that had been associated with Defendant, service was also attempted via mail; and

WHEREAS, counsel was instructed to file the exhibit of record; and

WHEREAS, as of today's date, counsel has not done so; and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, the court determined there was insufficient evidence of record to establish service of the Complaint on the proper party; and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, this Court determined there was insufficient evidence of record to establish an appropriate licensing fee and offered Plaintiff injunctive relief upon proof of service; and

WHEREAS, as of this date, Plaintiff has not notified the court that it wishes to obtain the injunctive relief offered by the court; and WHEREAS, as of this date, the issues of service, licensing fee and injunctive relief remain unresolved, THEREFORE, it is on this 2^nd day of June 2023, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 7) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.