On April 18, 1994, Artmatic filed a complaint against Max Factor, Noxell, Maybelline, and others alleging patent infringement of a design for a cosmetics compact. For purposes of these motions, the relevant facts are as follows.
This is a multi-party patent infringement suit. For the reasons below, Artmatic's motion to modify the default judgments is denied and Maybelline's motion for summary judgment is denied. ("Maybelline") for summary judgment based on the collateral estoppel effect of the default judgments secured by Max Factor and Noxell.
This multi-defendant action for patent infringement is before the Court on two motions: (1) a motion by plaintiffs Artmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney ("Artmatic") to modify the default judgment entered against them on Octoby eliminating a declaration of patent invalidity and (2) a motion by defendant Maybelline Co. Laura Weiss, Fenster & Weiss, New City, New York, for Defendant Pavion Ltd.Īllen Winston, Winston & Winston, Rye, New York, for Defendants Zalan. Snyder, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Defendants Noxell Corp. Susan Robertson, Kirchstein, Ottinger, Israel & Schiffmiller, P.C., New York City, for Dell Laboratories, Inc. Katz, Cooper & Dunham L.L.P., New York City, for Plaintiffs Artmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney. Hauser, Walter, Conston, Alexander & Green, P.C., New York City, for Defendant Maybelline Co. Delahunty, Brooks, Haidt, Haffner & Delahunty, New York City, for Defendants Noxell Corp.