Naina Parekh

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsW.D. New York

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
05/09/23	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 11 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Avon Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Naina Parekh bySwissdigital USA Co., Ltd.. (Keyhani, Dariush) (Entered: 05/09/2023)
05/09/23	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	MOTION for Default Judgment as to Avon Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Naina Parekh by Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd..(Keyhani, Dariush) (Entered: 05/09/2023)
04/04/23	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Avon Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., and Naina Parekh. (RE) (Entered: 04/04/2023)
04/03/23	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	TEXT ORDEROn 7/10/2020, the plaintiff, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. ("Swissdigital"), commenced this action, alleging that the defendants, Avon Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. and Naina Parekh, infringed a patent held by Swissdigital. Docket Item 1 . On 5/28/2021, Swissdigital filed a letter "to apprise the Court of its intention to move for default judgment" and asking the Court to enter a default. Docket Item 6 . Swissdigital explained that it has "attempted to serve [the d]efendants, who are citizens of India, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and with the Hague Convention." Id. at 1. And it argued that Article 15 of the Hague Convention permits entry of default here because (1) Swissdigital transmitted the documents for service by one of the methods provided in the Hague Convention; (2) more than six months had passed since the transmission of those documents; and (3) "no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it from India's Central Authority." Id. at 2-4.On 6/3/2022, this Court ordered Swissdigital to show cause why its efforts to effect service satisfy the due process clause of the Constitutionâ€”another requirement for service of process. See Docket Item 7 . On 7/18/2022, Swissdigital responded to the show cause order and explained that it had provided actual notice of the lawsuit to the defendants. Docket Item 8 at 2-6. To support that contention, Swissdigital described when and how it provided actual notice to the defendants, including by email and by phone call, id., and provided copies of the relevant emails and messages, see Docket Items 6-3, 8-3, 8-6. It also explained that it successfully had contacted the defendants via email before sending the complaint, and that the defendants appeared to continue using their email addresses for other business purposes after Swissdigital emailed copies of the complaint. Docket Item 8 at 5. Swissdigital concluded that "email correspondence was an effective means of communicating with" the defendants. Id.Having reviewed Swissdigital's filings, this Court agrees: Swissdigital's efforts to serve the defendants satisfied the due process clause because they were "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Additionally, Swissdigital has complied with the requirements of the Hague Convention. See Docket Item 6 ; Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 303 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of motion to vacate default judgment where plaintiff complied with the Hague Convention and satisfied constitutional due process).The Clerk of the Court therefore shall enter a default against the defendants and Swissdigital may move for a default judgment. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 4/3/2023. (DJ)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/03/2023) TEXT ORDEROn 7/10/2020, the plaintiff, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. ("Swissdigital"), commenced this action, alleging that the defendants, Avon Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. and Naina Parekh, infringed a patent held by Swissdigital. Docket Item 1 . On 5/28/2021, Swissdigital filed a letter "to apprise the Court of its intention to move for default judgment" and asking the Court to enter a default. Docket Item 6 . Swissdigital explained that it has "attempted to serve [the d]efendants, who are citizens of India, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and with the Hague Convention." Id. at 1. And it argued that Article 15 of the Hague Convention permits entry of default here because (1) Swissdigital transmitted the documents for service by one of the methods provided in the Hague Convention; (2) more than six months had passed since the transmission of those documents; and (3) "no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it from India's Central Authority." Id. at 2-4.On 6/3/2022, this Court ordered Swissdigital to show cause why its efforts to effect service satisfy the due process clause of the Constitutionâ€”another requirement for service of process. See Docket Item 7 . On 7/18/2022, Swissdigital responded to the show cause order and explained that it had provided actual notice of the lawsuit to the defendants. Docket Item 8 at 2-6. To support that contention, Swissdigital described when and how it provided actual notice to the defendants, including by email and by phone call, id., and provided copies of the relevant emails and messages, see Docket Items 6-3, 8-3, 8-6. It also explained that it successfully had contacted the defendants via email before sending the complaint, and that the defendants appeared to continue using their email addresses for other business purposes after Swissdigital emailed copies of the complaint. Docket Item 8 at 5. Swissdigital concluded that "email correspondence was an effective means of communicating with" the defendants. Id.Having reviewed Swissdigital's filings, this Court agrees: Swissdigital's efforts to serve the defendants satisfied the due process clause because they were "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Additionally, Swissdigital has complied with the requirements of the Hague Convention. See Docket Item 6 ; Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 303 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of motion to vacate default judgment where plaintiff complied with the Hague Convention and satisfied constitutional due process).The Clerk of the Court therefore shall enter a default against the defendants and Swissdigital may move for a default judgment. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 4/3/2023. (DJ)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/03/2023)
07/18/22	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Zhijian "Hunter" Li, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Declaration of Dariush Keyhani, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Certificate of Service)(Keyhani, Dariush) (Entered: 07/18/2022)
06/03/22	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEOn 5/28/2021, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. ("Swissdigital") filed a letter "to apprise the Court of its intention to move for default judgment" and asking the Court to enter a default in this case. Docket Item 6. Swissdigital says that it has "attempted to serve [the d]efendants, who are citizens of India, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil procedure Rule 4 and with the Hague Convention." Id. at 1. And it argues that Article 15 of the Hague Convention permits entry of default here because (1) Swissdigital transmitted the documents for service by one of the methods provided for in the Hague Convention; (2) more than six months have passed since the transmission of those documents; and (3) "no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it from India's Central Authority." Id. at 2-4. But "in addition to the Hague Convention, service of process must also satisfy constitutional due process." Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 303 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 838 (2d Cir. 1986)). Due process requires that the service method selected be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Swissdigital asserts that it "provided actual notice of this lawsuit to [the d]efendants on multiple occasions, including when the complaint was filed and when Swissdigital filed its [r]esponse to the Court's December 4[, 2020 o]rder." Docket Item 6 at 3. But it provides little explanation about how the defendants received actual notice. For example, Swissdigital says that it sent emails regarding this case to the defendants at addresses that it had previously used to communicate with them, see Docket Item 6 at 1, but it does not say when those prior communications occurred or provide additional detail from which this Court can infer that the defendants did, in fact, check and use those addresses at the relevant time in this case. Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Swissdigital shall show cause within 45 days of the date of this order why its service efforts satisfy the due process clause of the Constitution. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/3/2022. (WMH) (Entered: 06/03/2022) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEOn 5/28/2021, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. ("Swissdigital") filed a letter "to apprise the Court of its intention to move for default judgment" and asking the Court to enter a default in this case. Docket Item 6. Swissdigital says that it has "attempted to serve [the d]efendants, who are citizens of India, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil procedure Rule 4 and with the Hague Convention." Id. at 1. And it argues that Article 15 of the Hague Convention permits entry of default here because (1) Swissdigital transmitted the documents for service by one of the methods provided for in the Hague Convention; (2) more than six months have passed since the transmission of those documents; and (3) "no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain it from India's Central Authority." Id. at 2-4. But "in addition to the Hague Convention, service of process must also satisfy constitutional due process." Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 303 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 838 (2d Cir. 1986)). Due process requires that the service method selected be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Swissdigital asserts that it "provided actual notice of this lawsuit to [the d]efendants on multiple occasions, including when the complaint was filed and when Swissdigital filed its [r]esponse to the Court's December 4[, 2020 o]rder." Docket Item 6 at 3. But it provides little explanation about how the defendants received actual notice. For example, Swissdigital says that it sent emails regarding this case to the defendants at addresses that it had previously used to communicate with them, see Docket Item 6 at 1, but it does not say when those prior communications occurred or provide additional detail from which this Court can infer that the defendants did, in fact, check and use those addresses at the relevant time in this case. Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Swissdigital shall show cause within 45 days of the date of this order why its service efforts satisfy the due process clause of the Constitution. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/3/2022. (WMH) (Entered: 06/03/2022)
05/28/21	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	Letter filed by Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. as to Naina Parekh, Avon Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Frances H. Stephenson, # 2 Declaration of Anya Engel, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E)(Keyhani, Dariush) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
12/17/20	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	Text Order:The plaintiff, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. ("Swissdigital"), filed this action on July 10, 2020. Docket Item 1 . On December 4, 2020, the Court entered an order, under Rule 4(m), directing Swissdigital to show cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service. Docket Item 3 . On December 15, 2020, Swissdigital responded to that order, updating the Court on its efforts to effect service on the defendants in India. Docket Item 4 .Although Rule 4(m) allows 90 days to serve a defendant, the 90-day time limit does not apply with respect to "service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f)," which allows for service "by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(f)(1), (m). The Court is satisfied that Swissdigital is taking the necessary steps to effect service on the defendants in India, which is subject to the Hague Convention. See Docket Item 4 . Swissdigital therefore has shown "good cause" why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m). The time for Swissdigital to effect service is extended until May 31, 2021. Swissdigital may apply to the Court for an additional extension of time if one is required. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 12/17/2020. (MLA) (Entered: 12/17/2020) Text Order:The plaintiff, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. ("Swissdigital"), filed this action on July 10, 2020. Docket Item 1 . On December 4, 2020, the Court entered an order, under Rule 4(m), directing Swissdigital to show cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service. Docket Item 3 . On December 15, 2020, Swissdigital responded to that order, updating the Court on its efforts to effect service on the defendants in India. Docket Item 4 .Although Rule 4(m) allows 90 days to serve a defendant, the 90-day time limit does not apply with respect to "service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f)," which allows for service "by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(f)(1), (m). The Court is satisfied that Swissdigital is taking the necessary steps to effect service on the defendants in India, which is subject to the Hague Convention. See Docket Item 4 . Swissdigital therefore has shown "good cause" why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m). The time for Swissdigital to effect service is extended until May 31, 2021. Swissdigital may apply to the Court for an additional extension of time if one is required. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 12/17/2020. (MLA) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/15/20	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A)(Keyhani, Dariush) (Entered: 12/15/2020)
12/04/20	Swissdigital USA Co Ltd v. Avon Lifes 1:20-CV-00870 ( W.D. NY )	NOTICE BEFORE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICEThe plaintiff, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd., filed this action on July 10, 2020. Docket Item 1 . Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:"If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Id.The time to effect service now has elapsed.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service. The plaintiff may do so by providing the Court with an updated address for the defendants, or by otherwise providing "good reasons" for the failure to effect service. If the plaintiff does not respond to this order within 30 days, the matter shall be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m), and the Clerk of the Court shall close this case without further order.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 12/4/2020. (MLA)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- (Entered: 12/04/2020) NOTICE BEFORE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICEThe plaintiff, Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd., filed this action on July 10, 2020. Docket Item 1 . Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:"If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Id.The time to effect service now has elapsed.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service. The plaintiff may do so by providing the Court with an updated address for the defendants, or by otherwise providing "good reasons" for the failure to effect service. If the plaintiff does not respond to this order within 30 days, the matter shall be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m), and the Clerk of the Court shall close this case without further order.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 12/4/2020. (MLA)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- (Entered: 12/04/2020)