Telex Corporation v. International Business Mach. Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1447.,72-1447. |
| Citation | 464 F.2d 1025 |
| Parties | The TELEX CORPORATION, Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas D. Barr, New York City, Faegre & Benson, by John D. French, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant International Business Machines Corp.; Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, of counsel.
Robert F. Henson, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee The Telex Corp.
Before JOHNSEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
This matter was heard on an expedited appeal from the district court's entry of a "temporary restraining order" dated July 21, 1972. The order entered by the district court enjoins I.B.M. inter alia from announcing certain new products on or about August 2, 1972, and until such time that Telex Corporation's motion for preliminary injunction is heard and submitted to the district court on or before September 1, 1972. In view of the fact that the lower court's order exceeds the ten day limitation as set forth in Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court finds that the order so entered is tantamount to an issuance of a preliminary injunction and that the order entered on July 21, 1972, is an appealable order. See Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Engineer's International Association, 306 F.2d 840 (2 Cir. 1962); Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. Randolph, 182 F.2d 996 (8 Cir. 1950).
The district court on entering its order of July 21, 1972, states that it does not make any finding at this time on the "ultimate probable success on the merits nor of permanent irreparable injury to Telex." The order fails to require the giving of security by the applicant as required by Rule 65(c) and as set forth fails to make any specific finding of injury or irreparable harm as required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Upon review of the entire matter this court determines that the preliminary injunction entered by the court on July 21, 1972, should be, and hereby is, ordered dissolved. This opinion and judgment dissolving the July 21, 1972, order of the district court is without prejudice and is not intended to reflect on any findings the district court might make and any relief deemed appropriate from such findings which may arise from the September 1, 1972, hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, C 94-4117.
...(8th Cir.1976) (finding question of whether bond was required answered by plain language of Rule 65(c)); Telex Corp. v. International Bus. Machines Corp., 464 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir.1972) (preliminary injunction dissolved because trial court failed to require bond pursuant to Rule 65(c), and fu......
-
Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers, 82
...an alternative ground. System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Development Corp., 555 F.2d at 1145-46; Telex Corp. v. IBM, 464 F.2d 1025, 1025-26 (8th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). Where the injunction is otherwise upheld, the case has been remanded solely for reconsideration of the bond req......
-
Maryland Dept. of Human Resources v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
...at 103; System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Dev. Corp., 555 F.2d 1131, 1145-46 (3d Cir.1977); Telex Corp. v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 464 F.2d 1025, 1025 (8th Cir.1972); see also Hopkins v. Wallin, 179 F.2d 136, 137 (3d Cir.1949) (describing a Rule 65(c) bond as a "condition......
-
Roth v. Bank of the Com.
...issue one way or the other. The bank maintains that the requirement of Rule 65 is mandatory, citing Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 464 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1972); Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964), Cert. denied, 380 U.S. 956, 85 S.......
-
Ownership of Software and Computer-stored Data
...extended beyond the ten-day period has been treated as a preliminary injunction and was determined to be appealable. Telex Corp. v. IBM, 464 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1972). 46. See, Steinberg v. American Bantam Car Co., 173 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir. 1949). 47. F.R.C.P. Rule 65(a)(1). 48. In the Ten......