`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
`
`Civil Action No.12-cv-11758
`HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________/
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an Order addressing the parties’ Motions
`
`for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 437. In the March 12, 2015 Order, the Court
`
`withheld decision on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.’s
`
`(“Everlight”) request for judgment in its favor on Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
`
`Nichia Corporation’s and Nichia America Corporation’s (“Nichia”) claim for
`
`injunctive relief. Id. at 20. Everlight argues it is entitled to summary judgment on
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 439 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 35466
`
`Nichia’s claim for injunctive relief because Nichia cannot show monetary damages
`
`are inadequate nor the requisite irreparable harm. In order to obtain a permanent
`
`injunction, Nichia must demonstrate: (A) irreparable harm, (B) the inadequacy of
`
`money damages, (C) the absence of inequitable hardships, and (D) that an injunction
`
`would not disserve the public interest. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S.
`
`388, 391 (2006).
`
`The Court agrees with Nichia that it is premature to decide injunctive relief at
`
`this stage of the proceedings. See Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 11-235-RGA,
`
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55516, *37 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2014) (declining to grant
`
`summary judgment without prejudice because “the question of whether a permanent
`
`injunction is an appropriate remedy is better decided after trial . . . .”); see also
`
`Hamilton Cty. Emer. Communs. Dist. v. BellSouth Telecomms., LLC, 890 F. Supp.2d
`
`862, 885 (E.D. Tenn. 2012) (citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 396
`
`(1981))(concluding that it was appropriate to deny the plaintiff’s request for
`
`permanent injunctive relief prior to trial because consideration of a plaintiff’s “actual
`
`success on the merits” should be undertaken by the courts when determining whether
`
`to grant permanent injunctive relief.)
`
`The cases cited by Everlight do not support its position since those cases
`
`resolved the issue of injunctive relief after a jury trial and post-judgment briefing. See
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 439 Filed 03/16/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 35467
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., No. 08-cv-335-IEG-NLS,
`
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113632 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013); Acumed LLC v. Stryker
`
`Corp., 551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, without a complete record, the Court
`
`cannot conclude as a matter of law that monetary damages are adequate to compensate
`
`Nichia for Everlight’s yet to proven infringement of the patents-in-suit. Nor can the
`
`Court conclude that Nichia cannot demonstrate irreparable harm as a result of
`
`Everlight’s infringement without the benefit of a complete record. This aspect of
`
`Everlight’s present motion is premature and is DENIED.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 16, 2015
`
` /s/Gershwin A Drain
`GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`-3-
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
