Swift Prepaid Fails to Answer Patent Infringement Lawsuit Three Times
In a bizarre history of events, the Eastern District of Missouri denied a motion for leave to file an answer and counterclaim in Maritz Inc. v. C/Base, Inc., 2007 WL 2302511 (E.D. Mo. 8/7/07).
Maritz originally filed the patent infringement lawsuit on May 10, 2006. Swift failed to timely answer and then received an extension until July 10, 2006. Swift missed this deadline but filed a motion to dismiss on August 7, 2006. The motion was denied, and Swift's answer was due February 20, 2007. Swift missed this deadline and filed a motion for leave to file an answer on May 25, 2007.
The only excuse Swift offered for missing the deadlines was that it was engaged in settlement negotiations. The court was not pleased, stating: "based on counsel's representations, Swift's failure to timely file was based on a willful violation of the Court's rules." The motion was denied, and a default judgment will soon be entered.
