Flexible Lifeline Systems., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc.
654 F.3d 989
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Precision Lift, Inc. and Tollenaere allegedly used West Coast Weld Tech drawings to bid the Air Force C-130 maintenance stand contract.
- West Coast owned the drawings; Precision had access but did not own them, and West Coast stamped drawings as confidential property.
- West Coast sold most assets, including the drawings, to Flexible Lifeline Systems, Inc. (Flexible) in 2009.
- Flexible registered copyrights in the drawings in 2010 and sought to enjoin Precision from using them, including non-C-130 applications.
- District court granted a preliminary injunction based on a presumption of irreparable harm from likelihood of success on merits, pending appeal.
- This court vacated the injunction, remanding to determine irreparable harm with proper four-factor analysis consistent with eBay and Winter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presumption of irreparable harm survives after eBay and Winter | Flexible argues presumption remains valid after eBay/Winter. | Precision contends the presumption is barred by eBay and Winter. | Presumption is impermissible; likelihood of irreparable harm must be shown. |
| Proper standard for granting a preliminary injunction in copyright cases post-eBay and Winter | A presumption suffices given likelihood of merits. | Court must apply the four-factor test with proof of irreparable harm. | Four-factor test applies; cannot rely on presumption. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on a presumption rather than factual irreparable harm | Record shows imminent irreparable harm absent injunction. | Absence of explicit irreparable-harm findings requires reversal. | Remand to permit factual irreparable-harm findings and apply four-factor test. |
| Scope of injunction and sufficiency of merits findings | Flexible would prevail on merits and injunction should extend to all drawings. | Injunction too broad and merits not yet decided on remand. | Not reached on remand; injunction vacated pending proper four-factor analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (rejects automatic irreparable-harm presumption; four-factor test governs injunctions)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (requires likelihood of irreparable harm in preliminary injunctions; four-factor framework remains)
- Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of irreparable harm in copyright cases was adopted prior to eBay/Winter)
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (post-eBay/Winter rejection of irreparable-harm presumption in copyright injunctions)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2011) (reiterates that presumption of irreparable harm does not survive eBay/Winter)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (discusses irreparable-harm considerations in four-factor framework)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (environmental injury rarely presumed; requires demonstrated irreparable harm on the facts)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) (preliminary injunction standard largely aligns with permanent injunction standard)