Irreparable Harm

Subscribe to Irreparable Harm via RSS

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).*
After a jury held that certain of defendants’ (collectively “eSpeed”) products willfuly infringed two of plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) futures trading software patents (the Court previously reversed the willfulness finding), the Court entered a permanent injunction preventing future sales of the infringing software — a previous opinion granted summary judgment of noninfringement of eSpeed’s current software and all software except that sold during a six month period shortly after TT’s patents issued. The Court looked at each of the four standard injunction elements, as required by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC.
Irreparable Harm
The Court held that TT would be irreparably harmed by any continued sales of infringing product because TT’s successful business was built around its patented technology and, therefore, direct competitors with infringing products irreparably harmed TT. The Court agreed with eSpeed that general claims of competition were insufficient pursuant to eBay, but the Court held that TT’s direct competition assertions were supported by trial testimony.
Inadequate Remedy at Law
eSpeed argued that TT’s numerous licenses proved that monetary damages could compensate TT, as the eBay district court held after remand. but the Court distinguished eBay. eBay was premised upon a combination of plaintiff MercExchange’s:
willingness to license;
choice not to practice the patent;
failure to seek preliminary injuctive relief; and
consistent, clear statements that it desired monetary damages.
In contrast, TT manufactured a patented product and only licensed as an alternative to litigation. And the Court acknowledged TT’s concern that providing monetary damages after trial without an injuction would force a compulsory license on TT.
Balance of Hardships
The Court held that TT would be more harmed without an injunction than eSpeed would be harmed by an injunction. eSpeed no longer made or sold the infringing software, so an injunction would cause eSpeed little or no harm. Furthermore, eSpeed manufactured numerous non-infringing products. So, the extent of any harm was further minimized.
Public Interest
eSpeed argued that the public interest weighed against granting injunctions regarding patents in reexamination. But TT’s patents had since been upheld in the reexam. So, the only public interest factor was enforcement of TT’s patent rights.
For these reasons, the Court entered a permanent injunction. Click here to read the Permanent Injunction Order.
* Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives and click here for this opinion.
…
Continue Reading Trading Technologies v. eSpeed: Permanent Injunction

Little Tikes Co. v. Kid Station Toys, Ltd., No. 08 C 1935, 2008 WL 1805379 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2008) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Little Tikes’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to prevent defendant Kid Station Toys, Ltd. (“Kid Station”) from selling Kid Station electric toys using Little Tikes’ trademarks. From 2003 until February 2008, the parties had a license agreement (“Agreement”) pursuant to which Kid Station sold its electric toys using the Little Tikes trademarks. In February 2008, Little Tikes canceled the Agreement pursuant to a provision allowing it to do so for, among other reasons, unsafe toys. Kids Station allegedly had a toy cellphone recalled because it was a potential choking hazard. Kids Station disputed the validity of the termination and continued selling its toys using the Little Tikes trademarks.
The Court held that Little Tikes had shown sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Its trademarks ownership was undisputed and its success regarding the validity of its Agreement termination was “better than negligible.” Additionally, in the parties’ Agreement, Kids Station stipulated to Little Tikes’ irreparable harm.
But the Court held that Kid Station would be irreparably harmed by a TRO because it would not be able to meet its customer obligations, which would be a serious blow to its business. And, the Court held that Kid Station’s irreparable harm from a TRO outweighed Little Tikes’ irreparable harm without a TRO. While Kid Station may not be able to recover its customers, Little Tikes had already approved Kid Station’s existing toys and could recover royalties for any sales. The Court, therefore, denied the TRO.
…
Continue Reading TRO Denied: Defendant’s Harm More Irreparable Than Plaintiff’s

Geneva Int’l Corp. v. Petrof, Spol, S.R.O., No. 07 C 4214, 2007 WL 4522621 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).
Judge Moran denied plaintiff Geneva International’s preliminary injunction motion and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment on Geneva’s anticipatory breach of contract claim.* Geneva signed a variety of agreements with defendant Petrof making Geneva the exclusive U.S. distributor of Petrof’s pianos and the exclusive U.S. licensee of the “Petrof” trademark for use with Petrof’s pianos, through 2012. In 2007, Petrof gave Geneva the required six months notice to terminate the parties’ contract (but not their trademark license agreement which did not have the same termination provisions) and notified Geneva that Petrof planned to start selling its pianos using its trademark in the U.S.
Geneva sough a preliminary injunction to stop Petrof’s U.S. sales because Geneva continued to be the exclusive licensee of the Petrof trademark. But the Court held Geneva would not be irreparably harmed without the preliminary injunction. Geneva’s alleged irreparable harm — lost goodwill of its customers because Geneva would not be Petrof’s exclusive distributor — was caused by the contract, not breach of the trademark license. Petrof’s contract termination meant that Geneva could not be Petrof’s U.S. distributor, exclusive or otherwise. Because the alleged irreparable harm did not stem from the license at issue, the Court denied the injunction.
* Because they are not IP-specific, I will not fully address the contract issues. I will say that the disputes arose from the fact that the three agreements were signed on the same day, but did not all mention each other and had differing integration clauses, some mentioning the other agreements and some not. Practice tip: When drafting parallel agreements, make very clear how the agreements relate or that they do not.
…
Continue Reading No PI Because Alleged Irreparable Harm Could Not be Remedied Through the Suit

Bucciarelli-Tieger v. Victory Records, Inc., No. 06 C 4258, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).
Judge Moran granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ right to record new music with producers or record labels of plaintiffs’ choice. The Court also denied defendants an opposing preliminary injunction that would have prevented plaintiffs from recording new music with anyone other than defendants. Plaintiffs are members of an Ohio-based band called Hawthorne Heights (collectively “HH”) — in addition to clicking on “Hawthorne Heights” to go to the band’s website, you can also read about them on Wikipedia. HH entered into a contract (the “Agreement”) with defendants to produce and promote four albums. The first album was created and promoted seemingly without incident, but just before release of the second album the relationship soured. HH sent defendants a letter which purported to terminate the Agreement and listed several ways that defendants had allegedly harmed HH. This suit arose from that dispute. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, as well as copyright and trademark infringement for promotions and sales after the date of HH’s letter allegedly terminating the Agreement and related state law claims. In a prior opinion (discussed in the Blog’s archives), the Court held that the Agreement was not exclusive because it did not contain any exclusivity provisions, which left HH free to record other songs or records with another company during the life of the Agreement. Based upon the Court’s ruling, HH moved the Court for a preliminary injunction confirming that defendants could not interfere with any of HH’s efforts to record new music with a third party. Defendants cross-moved to prevent HH from working with anyone but defendants. The Court held that HH showed a likelihood of success on the merits based upon the Court’s prior ruling that the Agreement was not exclusive. Similarly, the Court held that defendants did not show a likelihood of success in light of the same ruling. Because defendants had no likelihood of success, their motion for a PI was denied. Defendants argued that HH could not base a motion for preliminary injunction upon claims for declaratory relief, but the Court held that numerous courts had granted preliminary injunctive relief based upon claims for declaratory judgment.
The Court found that HH would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. The parties agreed that bands have a short shelf-life and because without an injunction HH would not be allowed to record new music with parties of its choice in the immediate future, HH would be irreparably harmed without an injunction. The Court also held that despite the non-exclusivity of the Agreement, HH was obligated to produce records with defendants in a timely fashion. HH would be required to record the agreed-upon number of albums with defendants “within a reasonable time.”
…
Continue Reading Band Granted a Preliminary Injunction Allowing Choice of Producers

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, 2007 WL 1238908 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2007) (Moran, J.).

Judge Moran denied defendant Lear’s motion to stay the Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal to the Federal Circuit,* but did allow third party General Motors ("GM") to intervene of right and modified the PI to limit harm to defendant and GM.  In a March 30, 2007 opinion and order, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing defendant from marketing and selling its garage door opener transmitters based upon the Court’s prior claim constructions (these opinions are available in the Blog’s archives).  The Court held that Lear could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, in part because the Court’s "Markman decision and subsequent reconsideration dealt an enormous blow to [Lear’s] case."  The Court acknowledged that while plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without the PI, both Lear and GM could suffer irreparable harm because of the PI.  In order to resolve the irreparable harm issue, the Court revised the PI to exempt Lear’s sales to GM.  Because GM was Lear’s only client and because the exemption allowed GM to continue sourcing Lear’s product  the revised PI would remove harm to GM and substantially reduce Lear’s harm.  While Lear would not be able to add new customers, it would not have to idle its related workers and factories because Lear would not lose any customers.  Because the removal of GM sales from the PI substantially limits Lear’s potential harm, the Court denied Lear’s motion, supported by GM, to increase the bond from $10,000,000 to $50,000,000.Continue Reading Exemption of Sales to Defendant’s Sole Customer Limits PI Harm

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, 2007 WL 1017751 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2007) (Moran, J.).

Judge Moran granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing defendant from marketing and selling its garage door opener transmitters.  Relying upon its two prior claim construction decisions (which can be found in the Blog’s archives), the Court first determined that plaintiffs had proven a likelihood of success on its infringement claims.  Then the Court considered plaintiffs’ irreparable harm claims.  The Court denied plaintiffs’ argument that its showing of a strong likelihood of success creates a presumption of irreparable harm.  Citing eBay, Inc.  v. Merc Exchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006), the Court held that the Supreme Court limited the automatic presumption of irreparable harm based upon infringement.  Instead, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ had shown that they were irreparably harmed because defendant’s sales had eroded its prices and strained its customer relations.Continue Reading eBay Decision Negates Presumption of Irreparable Harm for PI’s

SMC Corp., Ltd. v. Lockjaw, LLC, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 983850 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2007) (Castillo, J.).

Judge Castillo granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from breaching the parties’ agreement, unless plaintiff acted in a manner triggering the agreement’s termination provision, and from contacting plaintiff’s customers for any purpose without plaintiff’s consent.  Plaintiff was the exclusive distributor of defendants’ patented Lockjaw pliers in certain Western European countries.  For about eighteen months, plaintiff’s distributed defendants’ pliers without incident.  But then defendants altered payment terms, which was their right if they followed certain procedures.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not follow those procedures and based on this dispute the relationship appears to have broken down.  Shortly after defendants altered the payment terms, plaintiff filed this suit seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the agreement is binding and enforceable, and that defendants breached the agreement.  Plaintiff also sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating the agreement and/or contacting plaintiff’s customers.  Relying upon the UCC, the Court found that plaintiff had a likelihood of success on the merits based upon, among other things, the fact that its brief (and cured) nonpayment for two shipments likely did not constitute a breach of the agreement.Continue Reading Harm to Goodwill is Potentially Irreparable, Justifying Preliminary Injunction