Preliminary Injunction Denied in Light of Post-Motion Events Reflecting No Loss of Market Share

The magistrate judge recommended denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to preclude the sale of the accused products because plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and found that post-motion activity did not support plaintiffs' claim of loss of market share. "In their opening brief . . . [plaintiffs] argued then that [defendant's] infringement would deprive them of their right to exclusive manufacture and sale of the patented products, which would in turn result in 'immediate loss of business to [plaintiff] including a loss of market share and market opportunities in the United States.'. . . Yet Plaintiffs' claims were not born out. As of . . . four months after Plaintiffs' opening brief was filed [plaintiff's global marketing director] acknowledged that he did 'not [then] have proof or knowledge of any lost business.' And two and a half months after that, when Plaintiffs filed their reply brief . . . the record was hardly much different. . . . Indeed, seven months after the Motion was filed, Plaintiffs can point to scarcely any lost sales at all, and have made no assertion that the amount of [plaintiff's] product sales in the hospitals referenced above have made any appreciable dent in [plaintiff's product's] market share."

Integra LifeSciences Corporation et al v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc., 1-15-cv-00819 (DED September 12, 2016, Order) (Burke, MJ)