Seiko Epson Corp. v. Startech International Computer Supplies

MEMORANDUM *

1. In the event of a breach, the Settlement Agreement states that “the Court in the Federal Action shall retain jurisdiction over this Settlement Agreement.... Epson may promptly file a declaration in the Federal Action requesting that the Court reinstate the Federal Action to active status.” (Emphasis added.) [ER 43.] This does not limit Epson’s remedy to reinstatement, and so the district court did not err in using contempt proceedings.

2. Overwhelming evidence suggested that Startech had failed to deliver the counterfeit cartridges, which were listed by model number. Startech’s failure to do so cost Epson sales and goodwill. The district court thus did not err in determining that compensatory damages amounted to $38,252. See United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 995-96 (9th Cir.1999) (no evidentiary hearing required when “overwhelming evidence” supports contempt finding).

3. Startech was required under the Settlement Agreement to pay $14,000 in *759 addition to delivering the counterfeit cartridges. Because the $38,252 was compensation for Startech’s failure to deliver the cartridges, the district court properly refused to apply a $14,000 offset.

4. The…