Opit v. jinanmokeyaoshangmaoyouxiangongsi

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Simon Opit, et al., No. CV-25-00073-PHX-SMM-ASB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. jinanmokeyaoshangmaoyouxiangongsi, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus (Doc. 13). On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 23). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgement be granted. To date, no objections have been filed.

1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.

McNamee 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, Defendant infringed Plaintiffs’ patent rights in the Foldable Tobacco Pipe Pouch, United States Design Patent Number US D1,018,049 S, and Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgement is granted.

19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 21 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 23).

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting default judgement against Defendant jinanmokeyaoshangmaoyouxiangongsi in favor of Plaintiffs Simon Opit and quzhouAluohadianzishangwuyouxiangongs as to Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief, Patent Infringement – 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Doc. 22).

27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying default judgement as to Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief, Unfair Competition under Arizona Law. (Doc. 22).

2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs an injunction against 3|| Defendant jinanmokeyaoshangmaoyouxiangongsi, Defendant’s instrumentalities, parent 4|| companies, subsidiaries, related companies, and all persons acting in concert or || participation with Defendant, or persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf, 6|| including its agents, servants, officers, directors, representatives, employees, successors, 7\|| shareholders, affiliates, assigns and attorneys, as well as all those in privity with them, be || permanently enjoined and restrained from: 9 1) Making, use, importing, exporting, distributing, supplying, selling, offering 10 for sale, or causing to be sold, any product falling within the ‘049 patent, or 11 otherwise contributing to or inducing the infringement of the ‘049 patent.

12 ii) This injunction expressly prohibits Defendant from selling or offering for 13 sale the infringing product on any e-commerce platform, such as 14 Amazon.com or Amazon marketplace.

15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded nominal damages in the amount of $10.00 against Defendant jinanmokeyaoshangmaoyouxiangongsi.

17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying pre-judgement interest.

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that post-judgment interest on the judgment be || assessed at the statutory rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court enter judgement accordingly.

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file a motion for costs on or || before October 10, 2015.

24 Dated this 26th day of September, 2025.

26 Lgl ia oem 27 Stephen M. McNamee 28 Senior United States District Judge -3-