Globus Medical, Inc. v. Vortex Spine, LLC
605 F. App'x 126
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Globus manufactures spinal implants; Vortex distributes them, owned by Long.
- An Exclusive Distributorship Agreement (EDA) from 2004 gave Vortex exclusive rights in parts of Louisiana and Mississippi and included non-compete and non-solicitation provisions; last EDA version active 2010–2013, extended to April 18, 2014, then expired.
- Globus alleged in 2014 that Vortex and Long sold competing products in violation of the EDA and asserted unfair competition and tortious interference claims.
- Globus sought TRO and preliminary injunction; a TRO was issued on June 9, 2014 barring further selling of competing products.
- Expedited discovery occurred, including related Louisiana NCND agreement disputes where Globus sought assignment of NCND rights from Vortex to Globus.
- The district court granted a September 5, 2014 order directing Vortex and Long to assign all NCND rights to Globus; this order was appealed and stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the September 5, 2014 order is appealable | Globus argues appellate review is proper as a preliminary injunction. | Vortex/Long contend the order is TRO and not appealable. | Order is an appealable preliminary injunction; TRO extended beyond 14 days. |
| Whether Globus must post a bond under Rule 65(c) | Bond is required unless an exception applies; Globus seeks no bond. | Bond required to protect Vortex/Long from monetary harm. | District court erred by not requiring a bond; no applicable exception shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennington Foods LLC v. St. Croix Renaissance, Grp., LLP, 528 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of injunction issues)
- In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig., 689 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir. 1982) (TRO duration and extension considerations)
- Frank’s GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1988) (bond requirement under Rule 65(c) and exceptions)
- United States v. Crusco, 464 F.2d 1060 (3d Cir. 1972) (treats TRO vs. preliminary injunction distinction)
- NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 1999) (bond considerations in injunctions)