Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Bridwell

• Decision Date: 23 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-1182,96-1182
• Citation: 103 F.3d 970,41 USPQ2d 1185
• Parties: POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Walter Polovina, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Andrew P. BRIDWELL, H.A. Spec. Co., and Westmark AG Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 970

103 F.3d 970

41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1185

POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Walter Polovina, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Andrew P. BRIDWELL, H.A. Spec. Co., and Westmark AG Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-1182.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 23, 1996.

Kristi Blazer, Luxan & Murfitt, Helena, Montana, argued, for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel was Donavon Lee Favre, of Glasgow, Virginia.

John H. Grant, Jackson, Murdo, Grant & McFarland, P.C., Helena, Montana, argued, for defendants-appellees.

William P. Driscoll, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena, Montana, submitted a separate brief on behalf of defendant-appellee Westmark AG Group, Inc. With him on the brief was William L. MacBride, Jr.

Before MAYER, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Polymer Technologies, Inc. and Walter Polovina (collectively "Polymer") appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the District of Montana denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Bridwell, No. CV 9567H-CCL (D.Mont. Jan. 12, 1996). Polymer sought to enjoin Andrew P. Bridwell, H.A. Spec. Co., and Westmark Ag Group, Inc. (collectively "Westmark") from manufacturing, marketing, and selling Climate brand foliar protective coating, acts that Polymer alleges, inter alia, infringe U.S. Patent 4,783,342. Because the district court abused its discretion by basing its denial of Polymer's motion solely on the clearly erroneous finding that Westmark rebutted the presumption of irreparable harm, we vacate and remand.

BACKGROUND

Polymer Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation founded by Ed Nolan, manufactures and sells a water-based, foliar protective coating known by the trade name Crop-Life. When applied to living plants, Crop-Life protects against frost, drought, and other adverse conditions. Since 1987, Polymer Technologies has made and sold Crop-Life under an exclusive license agreement with its inventor, Walter Polovina. This agreement provided that Polovina receive royalties based upon Polymer Technologies' sales of Crop-Life as well as financial assistance in preparing a patent application directed to his invention. That application matured into the '342 patent, which issued November 8, 1988 and claims a method for preserving fruits, vegetables, flowers, or living plants by applying a specified polymeric film coating.

In November 1994, Ed Nolan died suddenly and his widow, Joanna Nolan, assumed control of the company even though she had no prior business experience. Soon thereafter, Andrew Bridwell, who had worked for Polymer Technologies for eight years and served as its president, resigned after a dispute with the company. He moved to Montana and founded H.A. Spec. Co. to market Climate, a water-based polymer that Polymer alleges to be identical to Crop-Life. In order to manufacture Climate on a large scale, Bridwell contracted with Westmark Ag Group, Inc., an Arizona corporation. From July 31, 1995 through October 30, 1995, Westmark Ag Group manufactured 7630 gallons of Climate for Bridwell. Bridwell, apparently through H.A. Spec. Co., sold Climate for approximately $65,000. Meanwhile, Polymer Technologies' sales of Crop-Life declined from approximately $1.25 million in 1993 to only $350,000 for the first ten months of 1995. Polovina's royalty income also diminished from approximately $42,000 in 1993 to $3,000 for the first ten months of 1995.

On November 14, 1995, Polymer brought this infringement action ¹ in the United States District Court for the District of Montana and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit Westmark's manufacture, marketing, and sale of Climate. On December 7, the court held a hearing on Polymer's motion and approximately one month later issued an order denying the motion.

The district court noted that four factors are considered in determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue in a patent case, but the court analyzed only one of those factors: irreparable harm. Relying upon our decision in Reebok International Ltd. v. J.

                Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 31 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed.Cir.1994), the district court afforded Polymer a presumption of irreparable harm, but found that Westmark had rebutted the presumption.  In support of this finding, the court relied upon two subsidiary findings that (1) Ed Nolan's death, Joanna Nolan's inexperience, and competition from other companies which were not sued by Polymer contributed substantially to Polymer's lost sales and (2) any harm suffered by Polymer as a result of Westmark's activities could "be fully compensated by money damages" because "damages may be finite in this case due to the seemingly limited market and may therefore be readily calculated if it is later determined that [Westmark is] infringing upon the patent."   Polymer appeals to this court, challenging the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c) (1994)
                

DISCUSSION

"The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 is within the discretion of the district court." Novo Nordisk of North Am., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 77 F.3d 1364, 1367, 37 USPQ2d 1773, 1775 (Fed.Cir.1996). Accordingly, a trial court's decision denying a preliminary injunction will be overturned on appeal only upon a showing that the court "abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or seriously misjudged the evidence." Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 1579, 219 USPQ 686, 691 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 996, 104 S.Ct. 493, 78 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983). "An abuse of discretion may be established by showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings." Novo Nordisk, 77 F.3d at 1367, 37 USPQ2d at 1775.

As the moving party, Polymer had to establish its right to a preliminary injunction in light of four factors: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted; (3) the balance of the hardships and (4) the impact of the injunction on the public interest. Nutrition 21 v. United States, 930 F.2d 867, 869, 18 USPQ2d 1347, 1348-49 (Fed.Cir.1991). If Polymer clearly established the first factor (by making a "clear showing" of both validity and infringement), it was entitled to a rebuttable presumption in its favor regarding the second factor. See Smith Int'l, 718 F.2d at 1581, 219 USPQ at 692. The district court did not analyze whether Polymer clearly established the first factor. Instead, relying on Reebok, 32 F.3d at 1557, 31 USPQ2d at 1784, it afforded Polymer the benefit of the presumption of irreparable harm. In so doing, the district court assumed that Polymer had clearly shown a likelihood of success. It did not consider the remaining two factors.

Polymer argues that because our precedent requires a trial court to consider all four equitable factors, the district court committed legal error by considering only irreparable harm. Westmark responds that the district court properly followed our guidance in Reebok by giving Polymer the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm and then, after considering the evidence and finding that Westmark rebutted that presumption, denying Polymer's motion.

We have required that a trial court engage in "an evaluation and balancing of the [four] above-listed factors and the circumstances surrounding each.... [N]one may be ignored" before granting a preliminary injunction. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Grip-Pak, Inc., 906 F.2d 679, 681, 15 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also Payless Shoesource Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 998 F.2d 985, 988, 27 USPQ2d 1516, 1518 (Fed.Cir.1993) ("In deciding whether a moving party is entitled to a preliminary injunctive relief under section 283, a district court must consider [the four factors].").

Before denying a motion for preliminary injunction, an analysis of each of the four factors is generally appropriate "for reasons of judicial economy and greatly aids appellate review." Reebok, 32 F.3d at 1557, 31 USPQ2d at 1784. Nevertheless, more limited analysis may support a trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction. For example, a trial court need not make findings concerning the third and fourth factors if the Here, the district court attempted to do just that by affording Polymer the benefit of this presumption and by resting its denial of the motion on an explicit finding that Westmark overcame the presumption. Accordingly, the district court did not err by focusing its analysis solely on irreparable harm in denying Polymer's motion. However, since the court's decision was solely premised on the rebuttal of the presumption, we must vacate the trial court's decision if its finding that Westmark rebutted the presumption was "based an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings." Novo Nordisk, 77 F.3d at 1367, 37 USPQ2d at 1775. Since we do find clearly erroneous fact finding and an abuse of discretion, we will vacate the court's decision.

                moving party fails to establish either of the first two factors.  Id. at 1556, 31 USPQ2d at 1784 (citing T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd. v. Consolidated Med.  Equip., Inc., 821 F.2d 646, 3 USPQ2d 1316 (Fed.Cir.1987)).  Similarly, a trial court need not make a finding on a movant's likelihood of success on the merits if it affords the movant the benefit of the presumption of irreparable harm and properly finds that presumption rebutted by the non-movant.   Id. at 1557, 31 USPQ2d at 1784
                

The presumption of irreparable harm acts "as a procedural device which places the ultimate burden of production on the question of irreparable harm onto the alleged infringer." Reebok, 32 F.3d at 1556, 31 USPQ2d at 1784 (citing Roper Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 757 F.2d 1266, 1272, 225 USPQ 345, 349 (Fed.Cir.1985)); cf. Illinois Tool...