United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
KUSTOM CYCLES, INC., a South Dakota corporation d/b/a KLOCK WERKS KUSTOM CYCLES; BRIAN KLOCK, Plaintiffs,
DRAGONFLY CYCLE CONCEPTS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; KEVIN MICHAEL MARTIN, individually, Defendants.
JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE
Kustom Cycles, Inc. (“Klock Werks”) and Bryan
Klock allege defendants Dragonfly Cycle Concepts, LLC
(“Dragonfly”) and Kevin Martin infringed upon
their patent for a motorcycle windshield. (Docket 1).
Defendants failed to answer the complaint and the Clerk of
Court entered default against them. (Docket 9). On December
20, 2018, plaintiffs moved for default judgment, seeking the
court's order finding defendants infringed the patent, a
permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringing the
patent, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees. (Docket
11). Despite receiving service of the pleadings, defendants
failed to enter an appearance in this case. For the reasons
given below, the court enters default judgment in favor of
plaintiffs, enters a permanent injunction, and grants
statutory damages and attorneys' fees.
a default has been entered on a claim for an indefinite or
uncertain amount of damages, facts alleged in the complaint
are taken as true, except facts relating to the amount of
damages, which must be proved in a supplemental hearing or
proceeding.” Cutcliff v. Reuter, 791 F.3d 875,
882 (8th Cir. 2015). “A defaulted claim thus precludes
a party from contesting the facts in the complaint that
establish liability.” Id. Because defendants
defaulted on the patent claim at issue here, the court takes
all facts in plaintiffs' complaint establishing liability
2009, plaintiff Brian Klock obtained a design patent (Patent
No. D586, 275) for his motorcycle windshield. (Docket 1-1).
Mr. Klock is the founder and CEO of Klock Werks, which has
its principal place of business in Mitchell, South Dakota.
(Docket 1 at ¶¶ 5, 9). Klock Werks designs,
manufactures and sells custom motorcycle parts. Id.
at ¶ 5. Klock Werks sells “Flare”
windshields, which are the commercialized version of the
patented design. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 13.
Defendant Dragonfly manufactures and sells motorcycle parts
from its principal place of business in Fullerton,
California. Id. at ¶ 7. Defendant Kevin Martin
is the sole owner of Dragonfly. Id. Defendants
previously sold motorcycle windshields manufactured by Klock
Werks, including the Flare windshield, apparently with
permission. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 23.
Dragonfly also manufactures and sells a
“Flip-Out” batwing motorcycle windshield which
“embod[ies] the design” patented by plaintiffs.
Id. at ¶¶ 15-18. The Flip-Out windshield
is “virtually indistinguishable” from
plaintiffs' Flare windshield. Id. at ¶ 24.
Dragonfly sells its Flip-Out windshields in Sturgis, South
Dakota, at the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.Id. at
¶ 3. In 2017, a Klock Werks representative purchased a
Flip-Out windshield from a Dragonfly staff member in Sturgis.
Id. at ¶ 19.
knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Flare
windshield design was patented because they sold the Flare
windshield before creating the Flip-Out windshield.
Id. at ¶ 25. Defendants have not licensed the
patented design or otherwise obtained permission to
manufacture windshields embodying that design. Id.
at ¶ 39. Because of defendants' actions, plaintiffs
suffered “prior and continued financial loss as well as
significant harm to [their] goodwill within the motorcycle
industry and [their] ability to control the use and
commercial exploitation of [their] patented design.”
Id. at ¶ 27. Defendants' infringement was
and is “knowing, intentional, and willful.”
Id. at ¶ 40.
Patent Act provides that “whoever without authority
makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention
. . . infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
“A determination of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(a) requires a two step analysis-first, the
language of the claim at issue must be interpreted to define
its proper scope and, second, the evidence before the court
must be examined to ascertain whether the claim has been
infringed[.]” Minn. Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Johnson
& Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1570
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
court “may grant injunctions in accordance with the
principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right
secured by patent[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 283. The Supreme
Court set out a “four-factor test” that applies
“to disputes arising under the Patent Act”:
A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an
irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such
as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that
injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships
between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
disserved by a permanent injunction.
eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391
“exceptional” Patent Act cases, the court
“may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing
party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285.
[A]n “exceptional” case is simply one that stands
out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a
party's litigating position (considering both the
governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable
manner in which the case was litigated. District courts may
determine whether a case is “exceptional” in the
case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the
totality of the circumstances.
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). The moving party in a
patent infringement case must establish its
“entitlement to fees under § 285 . . . by a
preponderance of the ...