The OEM filed a response to the courts to not get the case dismissed, just because the defendant Prinko Image Co. USA, Inc (Prinko) has not responded to the complaint filed by Epson in June this year.
On 20 July 2017 The United States District Court Central District of California filed an order to show reasons why the courts should not dismiss the case for “lack of prosecution” in the case Seiko Epson et al. v Prinko Image Co. USA, Inc. This was filed on the basis that Prinko had not responded to the complaint in any of the deadlines given by the courts.
Epson responded to the order on 03 August asking the courts not to dismiss the case since the OEM “intends to move for entry of default and then a default judgment against Defendant seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and appropriate sanctions.
“In order to prove up its monetary damages, however, Epson needs to take third party discovery on Amazon.com, Inc. to determine the number of infringing ink cartridges Defendant has sold on Amazon’s online marketplace.”
Epson stated in its response it had filed the complaint against Prinko on 16 June, on 19 June the Court issued a summons and transferred the case to the Patent Pilot Program and on 27 June Epson duly served the Summons and Complaint on Prinko. Epson included with the Summons and Complaint, a letter to Prinko inviting them to contact Epson’s counsel to discuss the potential for early settlement.
To date, Prinko has neither filed a response to the complaint nor contacted Epson or its counsel regarding the case.
To receive the quantitative information from Amazon Inc Epson intends to seek pre-judgment discovery and will seek a Court order allowing the service of such discovery in the form of a subpoena on Amazon.com, Inc., so that Epson may obtain the information necessary to support its motion for a default judgment as to Defendant.
Through this third party action Epson is trying to excel the case and seek default judgement and is, therefore, asking the courts not to dismiss the case.