Preliminary Injunction Archives - Page 4 of 7

A Shoe-In? Fleet Feet Gives Injunction Appeal the Moot Boot

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a preliminary injunction as moot where the enjoined party had discontinued the use complained of and had no future plan to restart it. Fleet Feet, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., Case No. 19-2390 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021) (Diaz, J.) The Court denied the enjoined party’s request that it vacate the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction despite mootness due to an ongoing litigation.

Fleet Feet is a retailer selling products related to running, including Nike merchandise. It is also a Nike competitor since Nike sells its own products. Fleet Feet obtained two trademark registrations, having already used both for years: “Running Changes Everything” in 2020, and “Change Everything” in 2015. In July 2019, Nike launched an advertising campaign with the tagline “Sport Changes Everything” scheduled to end at the February 2020 Super Bowl. Fleet Feet sued Nike for trademark infringement. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against Nike and set a $1 million injunction bond. The preliminary injunction order prohibited Nike from any use of the phrase “Sport Changes Everything” or any other designation confusingly similar to the Fleet Feet’s marks when advertising or selling goods and services. Nike discontinued its campaign two months before the scheduled end and appealed the preliminary injunction order.

Nike argued that the district court erred in its preliminary injunction factor analyses. But on appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided as a threshold matter that the end of Nike’s “Sport Changes Everything” campaign and its representation that there were no plans to use the term after the campaign rendered Nike’s appeal of the preliminary injunction “designed to interrupt that very campaign” moot. A case becomes “moot” when the “issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” The Court found that Nike’s appeal of the preliminary injunction was nonjusticiable since there had been an event during the pendency of the appeal that made it impossible to grant effective relief to a prevailing party. Because of the conclusion of the 2020 Super Bowl and Nike’s representations that it did not plan to use the term afterwards, there was no possible relief to Nike based on the preliminary injunction’s interference with the campaign.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed with Nike that two issues remained live. First, Nike argued that the continued restraint on Nike’s speech due to the order’s prohibition of any confusingly similar designation to Fleet Feet continued to be a live issue. The Court explained that this was only a potential controversy, not a live controversy. Because Nike had not engaged in the speech barred by the order, had represented that it did not intend to do so in the future, and had not introduced any new slogans confusingly similar to Fleet Feet’s marks, no actual speech was threatened by the preliminary injunction.

Second, Nike argued that the potential recovery on the injunction bond was a live issue. Referring to the Supreme Court case Univ. of Tex. [...]

Continue Reading

In a dispute over the terms of a settlement agreement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent owner was not entitled to a preliminary injunction despite a stipulation that it would be irreparably harmed if the accused infringer breached certain provisions of the agreement. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1407, -1417 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020).

Takeda originally sued Mylan to prevent Mylan’s launch of a generic version of Takeda’s branded drug Colcrys. The parties ultimately settled under terms set forth in a settlement/license agreement, including a provision in Section 1.2(d) stating that Mylan would be entitled to launch a generic product after a Final Court Decision holding that all unexpired claims of the licensed patents that were asserted and adjudicated against a third party were either (i) not infringed or (ii) any combination of not infringed and invalid or unenforceable. The licensed patents included 17 Orange-Book-listed patents that Takeda had asserted against Mylan. The parties further agreed that a breach of this provision “would cause Takeda irreparable harm.”

While Takeda and Mylan were negotiating the settlement, another patent litigation that involved some of the licensed patents was ongoing (the West-Ward litigation). The West-Ward litigation involved a different party and a different drug product. Takeda did not assert all 17 patents in the West-Ward litigation. It only asserted eight and ultimately dismissed five with prejudice. On summary judgment, the district court in the West-Ward litigation found that the asserted claims of the remaining three patents were not infringed.

Mylan informed Takeda that it would launch its generic product, arguing that summary judgment in the West-Ward litigation triggered Section 1.2(d), allowing it to launch its generic product because all of the asserted claims remaining in the suit had been found not infringed. In response, Takeda filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and patent infringement, and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Mylan from its launch. The preliminary injunction motion was denied. Takeda appealed.

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show (i) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (ii) that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (iii) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (iv) that an injunction is in the public interest. The Federal Circuit’s decision focused on the first two factors: likelihood of success and irreparable harm.

The Federal Circuit’s analysis of the likelihood of success prong turned on the meaning of Section 1.2(d). Takeda argued that Section 1.2(d) had not been triggered because not all unexpired claims that were asserted in the West-Ward litigation had been found not infringed, specifically the asserted claims of the five withdrawn patents. Mylan argued that triggering Section 1.2(d) only required that all unexpired claims that had been asserted and adjudicated to be found not infringed or invalid, and because the asserted claims of the five dismissed patents were not adjudicated, it was not necessary that the dismissed claims be [...]

Continue Reading