United States District Court, D. Oregon
VINCENT L. WEBB, a resident of the State of Nevada, Plaintiffs,
TRAILER CITY, INC., an Oregon corporation; DAN E. WALKER, a resident of Oregon; and CHANGZHOU NANXIASHU TOOL CO., LTD., a foreign corporation, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Vincent L.
Webb's request for damages (#26) against Defendant
Changzhou Nanxiashu Tool Co., Ltd.,  for violation of the terms
of the Permanent Injunction (#16) issued against Defendant.
reasons that follow, the Court AWARDS
Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant for damages in the
amount of $6, 399, 540.00.
20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court and
alleged claims for trademark infringement; violation of
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 646.608(b); copyright infringement; and unfair
competition against Defendant. On June 29, 2011, Defendant
was served with Summons and Complaint. Defendant failed to
answer or otherwise to appear within the time required. On
August 19, 2011, the Court entered a Default Judgment and
Permanent Injunction (#16) against Defendant.
was required under the terms of the Permanent Injunction to
return proprietary materials to Plaintiff and was enjoined
from “manufacturing, exporting, selling, or importing
into the United States” trailers that were manufactured
using Plaintiff's proprietary materials or trailers
“identical to any of the models which [Defendant]
previously manufactured for Plaintiff.” Although an
unspecified amount of damages was alleged in Plaintiff's
Complaint, no monetary damages were requested by Plaintiff in
the Default Judgment.
September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion (#18) to Reopen
Case and Order to Show Cause why Defendant should not be held
in contempt for violating the terms of the Default Judgment
and Permanent Injunction. On September 16, 2016, the Court
issued an Order (#21) and required Defendant to respond to
Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause by October 3,
2016. Defendant did not respond. On October 7, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a Reply requesting the Court to reopen the
case, issue an order to show cause why Defendant should not
be held in contempt, and set a hearing to determine damages.
October 12, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why
Defendant should not be held in contempt, and the Court set a
hearing for November 3, 2016. On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a certificate of service indicating Defendant had been
served with the Order to Show Cause. On November 2, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a Brief (#26) in Support of Damages and
requested an award of $14, 867, 010.00 in damages.
November 3, 2016, the Court held the show-cause hearing.
Defendant failed to appear as ordered. The Court entered an
Order (#28) finding Defendant in contempt for failing to
comply with the terms of the Permanent Injunction and took
the issue of damages under advisement.
January 5, 2017, the Court issued an Order (#29) directing
Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief to support the amount
of damages sought. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
Supplemental Memo (#36) regarding damages at the direction of
the Court and now seeks damages of $11, 947, 505.00 together
with pre-judgment interest pursuant to Oregon Revised
Statutes § 82.010.
court may impose civil contempt sanctions to coerce the
defendant into compliance with the court's order and to
compensate the complainant for losses sustained. United
States v. UMWA, 330 U.S.258, 303-04 (1947). See also
Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623,
629 (9th Cir. 2016)(“The purpose of civil contempt is
coercive or compensatory.”).
civil contempt proceeding based on a patent-infringement case
the district court is free to exercise its inherent
discretion to correct willful violations of the court's
orders when determining an award of damages. The court is not
bound by provisions of the patent-infringement statute.
See Dow Chem. Co. v. Chem. Cleaning, Inc., 434 F.2d
1212, 1214-15 (5th ...