A judgment by default may be entered by the court on a party's application for a default judgment. Motion I: Modification of Default JudgmentДЇederal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides for default when a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the rules.

Argument was heard on both motions on July 21, 1995. On July 5, 1995, Maybelline filed a summary judgment motion that sought to use the defensive collateral estoppel effect of the Max Factor and Noxell default judgments of patent invalidity and noninfringement. In a letter dated July 6, 1995, Noxell and Max Factor stated that they do not oppose the proposed modification of the default judgments. In the settlement, Proctor & Gamble agreed not to oppose a motion by Artmatic to modify the Noxell and Max Factor default judgments by deleting the declarations of patent invalidity and unenforceability.ДЄrtmatic filed that motion on July 5, 1995. The Court denied the motion orally on Ma'for all the reasons set forth in the memorandum in opposition.'ДЄrtmatic subsequently entered into settlement negotiations with Proctor & Gamble, the parent company of Noxell and Max Factor. On March 6, 1995, Maybelline filed a motion for a default judgment based on Artmatic's failure to comply with discovery requests. On December 6, 1994, the law firm of Cooper & Dunham was substituted as Artmatic's attorney of record. On December 2, 1994, Artmatic moved to relieve the law firm of Schrier & Tanen as counsel. The appeal was dismissed on Decem'for failure to file forms C and D.' Mandate of Court of Appeals, DN 94-9184. On November 17, 1994, Artmatic filed an appeal from the Max Factor and Noxell default judgments. On October 7, 1994, at oral argument, this court granted Max Factor and Noxell's motions for final judgments on their counterclaims dismissal of Artmatic's complaint with respect to them with prejudice and the award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees. On September 16, 1994, Max Factor and Noxell filed motions for default judgments based on Artmatic's failure to answer their counterclaims. Noxell answered the complaint and counterclaimed for similar relief. On June 22, 1994, Maybelline answered the complaint and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that its products were non-infringing and that the patents in suit were invalid. A stipulation and order dated Jextended the time for defendants Max Factor and Noxell to answer to July 16, 1994. 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.ДЄllen 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. MAYBELLINE CO., a DIVISION OF SCHERING PLOUGH, INC., Paris Presents, Inc., a division of Allied of Chicago, Inc., Noxell Corporation, Bonne-Bell, Inc., Almay Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Revlon Corp., Max Factor, Coty Division of Pfizer Inc., Pavion Ltd., Cosmetics & Chemical Manufacturers, Inc., Cosmair, Inc., Chesebrough Ponds, Inc., Dell Laboratories, Inc., Estee Lauder, Inc., Posner Labs, Inc., and Zalan Products Inc., Defendants. ARTMATIC USA COSMETICS, a DIVISION OF the ARTHUR MATNEY CO., INC.

Artmatic usa