Innovative Office Products v.

Innovative Office Products, Inc. v., Inc. 

Civil Action No. 10-4487

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

April 26, 2012

Innovative Office Products, Inc., v., Inc., et. al., No. 10-4487, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. PA., 2012: This is a patent infringement case involving Plaintiff Innovative Office Products, Inc.’s claims of patent infringement by, Inc.

Other defendants included: eBay Inc.,, Inc., S. Link Inc., Zeetron Inc., GainGame, Inc., Lapworks, Inc., Neoteric Solution, Inc., iGear USA LLC, and Bafbiz, Inc. (conducted business as KB Covers).

The claims alleged in this case are pursuant to the United States Patent Act, 35  U.S.C. §§ 1.

Case Details

Innovative Office Products, Inc., sued Amazon and a number of other defendants for patent infringement. The Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located at in Easton, Pennsylvania. Innovative Office Products, Inc. manufactures and sells a portable stand for electronic devices under the trademark CRICKET®. Plaintiff alleges that this portable stand is protected by two patents that they own by assignment:

(1) The ‘293 Patent (United States Patent No. D 575,293)

(2) The ‘719 Patent (United States Patent No. 7,712,719)


September 2, 2010: Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging patent infringement.

September 17, 2010: Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint in which Plaintiff added iGear USA LLC and Bafbiz, Inc. as defendants.

November 12, 2010: Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

November 23, 2010: Court granted this motion. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on this same day. Thereafter, most of the Defendants were voluntarily dismissed from the action by Plaintiff (Bafbiz, iGear USA, eBay, S. Link Inc. and Order, Neoteric Solution,, Lapworks, and

Plaintiff willingly dismissed Amazon and other defendants from the case, but brought a motion for permanent injunction against one defendant – Zeetron – that did not answer Plaintiff’s claim or appear in court.

Innovative Office Products v. – Summary & Conclusion

Despite having received a cease and desist letter from Plaintiff on September 20, 2010, and having properly been served with the Second Amended Complaint, Zeetron has failed to plead, or even make an appearance, in this action. Moreover, in compliance with the Federal Rules, Plaintiff filed with its Request for Entry of Default an affidavit asserting the grounds for its request.

In failing to answer the complaint, the Court took the Plaintiff’s claims as true and decided as a matter of law that the defendant had infringed upon Plaintiff’s patent. Therefore, a permanent injunction was warranted.