Preliminary injunction request is denied
Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Company, C.A. No. 07-585-SLR, October 3, 2008.
Robinson, J. Court finds that plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving likelihood of success on the merits of irreparable harm and denies motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff manufactures high-quality polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) resin under the tradename PermaClear®. Plaintiff sells its PermaClear® resin to manufacturers of plastic beverage bottles and other food packaging throughout North and South America. Plaintiff owns the related ‘863 patent. Defendant is the largest manufacturer of PET resins in the U.S. In November 2006, defendant launched a product called ParaStar® PET resin. Defendant’s ParaStar® 4000 and 7000 products are accused of infringing the ‘863 patent. Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection in February 2008. Plaintiff cites defendant’s infringement as among the events necessitating the bankruptcy filing. The Court finds that defendant has not raised a substantial question concerning infringement by its ParaStar® 4000 resin. However, with respect to the issue of invalidity, the Court finds that defendant has raised a substantial question as to whether claim 15 of the ‘863 patent is obvious and, therefore, invalid. In addition, Court concludes that plaintiff has not demonstrated that it will “likely prove” that ParaStar® 7000 infringes claim 15 of the ‘863 patent or that claim 15 will “likely withstand” defendant’s challenges to the validity of the ‘863 patent. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of proving likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish irreparable harm and concludes that monetary damages should suffice to address any injuries ultimately found to be attributable to infringement by defendant of the ‘863 patent.
