Mabe LLC v. Wie
2:25-cv-00319
| D. Utah | May 19, 2025Background
- Mabe, LLC sells baby carriers online and contracted Ms. Wie to manufacture carriers beginning in November 2023.
- In August 2024, Mabe notified Ms. Wie that it was switching manufacturers; shortly after, Ms. Wie applied for and received a design patent ('903 Patent) for the carrier.
- Ms. Wie informed Amazon of alleged patent infringement by Mabe, resulting in Mabe's product listings being removed from the platform.
- Mabe initiated this action seeking a declaration of patent invalidity and requested ex parte emergency injunctive relief.
- The court denied ex parte relief but later entered a Temporary Restraining Order after Ms. Wie failed to appear or respond; Mabe now seeks a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary injunction standard | Mabe meets the standard due to irreparable harm, likely success, balance of equities, and public interest | No appearance or opposition | Preliminary injunction granted in part |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of revenue, market share, reputation from Amazon takedowns is irreparable | No argument | Court finds irreparable harm satisfied |
| Patent invalidity (Section 102) | '903 Patent is invalid because product was on sale and advertised more than 1 year before filing | No argument | Court finds substantial likelihood of success for Mabe |
| Scope of injunction (mandatory/disfavored) | Seeks order for Wie to withdraw Amazon infringement notices | No argument | Court applies heightened standard and grants injunction requiring withdrawal and no further enforcement pending case |
Key Cases Cited
- Mrs. Fields Franchising, LLC v. MFGPC, 941 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2019) (discussing preliminary injunction standard in the Tenth Circuit)
- DTC Energy Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 912 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2018) (preliminary injunction requires clear showing on each element)
- RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm requirement and heightened standard for disfavored injunctions)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (explaining the heightened burden for mandatory and status quo-altering injunctions)
- Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) (elements for preliminary injunction and public interest considerations)