Asa v. Pictometry International Corp.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127638
W.D.N.Y.2010Background
- Blom ASA filed a petition for injunctive relief and a preliminary injunction in WDNY on Oct 27, 2010 regarding the ICC arbitration over Pictometry's licensing to Blom.
- The parties’ License Agreement (Jan 2009) granted Blom an exclusive, non-transferable European license to Pictometry’s technology, with ICC arbitration for disputes and a provision for interim measures.
- In Feb 2010 Blom and Infoterra entered a Cooperation Agreement to jointly market imagery, prompting disputes that Blom argues breached the License Agreement.
- On Oct 18, 2010 Pictometry terminated the License Agreement immediately, alleging Blom’s Cooperation Agreement with Infoterra breached several provisions; Blom contested the termination.
- On Oct 25, 2010 Blom requested ICC arbitration alleging wrongful termination; Blom sought injunctive relief enjoining Pictometry from hindering Blom’s license and related conduct; Pictometry cross-moved for injunction to bar Blom’s use of Pictometry’s technology.
- The court concluded a status-quo-preserving injunction was appropriate, requiring both parties to continue performing under the License Agreement and barring Blom from the Infoterra Cooperation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may grant a preliminary injunction pending arbitration | Blom argues to preserve arbitration meaningfulness and status quo. | Pictometry contends standard injunctive relief must show merits or serious questions with proper balance. | Yes; court may grant pending arbitration to preserve status quo. |
| What status quo should be preserved pending arbitration | Status prior to Blom-Infoterra Cooperation should be preserved. | Status should reflect ongoing breach/rift due to Cooperation with Infoterra. | Restore and preserve the status ante Cooperat ion; require both sides to perform under the License. |
| Whether irreparable harm supports preliminary relief | Blom will suffer irreparable harm from loss of up-to-date imagery and goodwill. | Harm must be shown as irreparable and not easily compensable by money. | Irreparable harm established sufficient for relief. |
| Whether merits or serious questions exist and balance of hardships supports relief | Claims merit and ongoing harm justify injunction. | Merits should be reserved for arbitration; strong harm if relief granted only to one side. | Serious questions on merits; balance of hardships favors preserving the contractual relationship. |
| Whether a bond is required for the injunction | Bond not necessary given status-quo preservation. | Bond may be appropriate to cover potential harms. | No bond required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blumenthal v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 910 F.2d 1049 (2d Cir. 1990) (explicit recognition of district court power to grant injunctions pending arbitration)
- Toyo Tire Holdings v. Continental Tire North America, 609 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court may grant interim relief to preserve arbitration meaningfulness)
- Unicon Mgmt. Corp. v. Koppers Co., 366 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1966) (injunctions to maintain status quo to keep arbitration meaningful)
- Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1963) (status quo ante and preservation of contractual relationship pending arbitration)
- Peabody Coalsales Co. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 36 F.3d 46 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting court's role in balancing merits and preserving arbitration process)