Logo

CEMCO, LLC v. KPSI Innovations, Inc.

In the case of CEMCO, LLC v. KPSI Innovations, Inc., the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington addressed CEMCO's motion for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with discovery requests related to a patent infringement dispute.

October 23, 2024 — by Nicole Gill

In the case of CEMCO, LLC v. KPSI Innovations, Inc., the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington addressed CEMCO's motion for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with discovery requests related to a patent infringement dispute. CEMCO accused KPSI and its associated defendants, including James and Serina Klein, of willfully withholding evidence and failing to produce critical documents as ordered by the court. The court noted a history of discovery misconduct, highlighting that despite multiple requests and a court order mandating the production of documents, the defendants failed to comply, which severely prejudiced CEMCO's ability to prepare for trial.

The court evaluated the legal standards for imposing sanctions, including whether the defendants acted in bad faith or willfully disobeyed court orders. It found that the defendants not only missed the initial production deadlines but also did not provide certain key documents, such as videos and emails that were relevant to the case. This ongoing misconduct had significantly undermined the integrity of the judicial process and impaired CEMCO’s ability to prove its claims, justifying the need for sanctions.

Ultimately, the court granted CEMCO’s motion in part, entering a default judgment against the defendants for CEMCO’s claims of induced patent infringement and striking many of the defendants' affirmative defenses and counterclaims. However, the court declined to dispose of the entire case, determining that the sanctions should focus on the specific issues of induced infringement rather than a blanket dismissal. Additionally, CEMCO was permitted to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuing the sanctions motion, though its request for fees under patent law was denied without prejudice to future refiling.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Nicole Gill, Chair, Managing Member CODISCOVR. With almost a decade of experience, she manages complex and high-profile eDiscovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many domestic and foreign jurisdictions. 

Logo

CODISCOVR is an ancillary business of Cozen O’Connor, a full-service law firm with more than 925 attorneys in 30+ cities across two continents.

© 2024 CODISCOVR Terms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy