209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000), 99-2215, Mead Johnson & Co. v Abbott Labs.

Docket Nº:99-2215
Citation:209 F.3d 1032
Party Name:Mead Johnson & Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abbott Laboratories, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:April 12, 2000
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1032

209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000)

Mead Johnson & Co., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Abbott Laboratories, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-2215

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

April 12, 2000

Page 1033

Patrick A. Shoulders, Ziemer, Stayman, Weitzel & Shoulders, Evansville, IN, R. Bruce Dickson, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee.

Thomas C. Morrison, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York, NY, Laura Schumacher, Abbott Laboratories, Office of the General Counsel, Abbott Park, IL, for defendant-appellant.

Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Kanne, Circuit Judges.

Prior Report: 201 F.3d 883

Per Curiam.

Abbott Laboratories has filed a petition for rehearing asking us to remand so that the district court may increase the amount of the injunction bond. A higher bond would produce a higher potential award of damages for wrongful injunction, because we have already held that the district court should not have awarded preliminary injunctive relief. According to Mead Johnson, Coyne-Delany Co. v. Capital Development Board, 717 F.2d 385, 394 (7th Cir. 1983), holds that it is possible to increase the injunction bond even after the injunction has been reversed.

Coyne-Delany does not hold any such thing. None of the parties to the case requested such a step. What the panel in Coyne-Delany remarked is that a litigant aggrieved by an insufficient injunction bond may ask the court of appeals to increase it. An increase could be beneficial to the enjoined party if (a) the court of appeals affirms the preliminary injunction, but a possibility remains that permanent relief will be denied; or (b) the preliminary injunction is vacated for legal error, but the district court remains free to afford new injunctive relief, the situation in International Game Technology v. WMS Gaming Inc., 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 22971 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 1999); or (c) the increase precedes reversal of the preliminary injunction, and thus affords the enjoined party additional damages for harm suffered during the period between the increase of the bond and the end of injunctive relief. Nothing in Coyne-Delany suggests that an injunction bond may be increased after the preliminary injunction has already been reversed and will not be replaced by another.

A bond is a condition to preliminary injunctive relief. Coyne-Delany holds...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP