Morisky v. MMAS Research LLC, 2:21-cv-01301

Background

Donald Morisky developed the MMAS adherence scales (MMAS‑4 and MMAS‑8), holds registered copyrights for those works and a trademark in “MMAS.”
In 2014 Morisky licensed Steve Trubow (then owner of Olympic Labs) to develop an electronic Morisky Widget; the parties agreed to split licensing revenue but Morisky retained ownership of MMAS copyrights.
Trubow reorganized MMAS Research LLC; disputes followed, Morisky formed his own company (MMAR), and competing state and federal lawsuits were filed.
The parties executed a written Settlement Agreement (SA) on December 6, 2020 that, among other things, allowed MMAS Research to pursue retroactive licensing of the Morisky Widget (Exhibit 3) during a transition period and contemplated assignment of the Widget copyright to Morisky after that period.
Morisky filed this federal action (Sept. 24, 2021) and moved for a preliminary injunction (Mar. 10, 2022) to bar Defendants from using/selling all “Morisky IP.” Defendants contend their activity complies with the SA and that MMAS Research currently holds the Widget registration.
The magistrate judge recommends denying the preliminary injunction: Morisky failed to prove likely irreparable harm, delay undermined his claim, and an injunction would disrupt the SA/status quo; Morisky also does not currently hold the Widget copyright registration.

Issues

Issue	Morisky's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Should a preliminary injunction bar Defendants from using/selling Morisky IP (copyright/trademark claims)?	Morisky: Defendants are escalating infringement (including perpetual Widget licenses) causing irreparable harm to value, reputation, and control.	Defendants: Uses are authorized by the SA (limited to Exhibit 3/claim settlements); no infringement; MMAS Research holds Widget registration.	Denied (R&R): Morisky failed to show likely irreparable harm; injunction would disturb SA/status quo.
Does Morisky face irreparable harm warranting emergency relief?	Loss of ability to exploit copyrights, damage to worldwide reputation, and loss of control are irreparable.	No evidentiary showing of lost sales, lost value, or reputational harm; monetary relief would suffice.	No — Court found no evidence of likely irreparable harm and noted Morisky’s delay in seeking relief.
Can Morisky prove copyright infringement of the Morisky Widget now?	Morisky asserts Defendants’ Widget licensing infringes his Morisky IP.	MMAS Research holds the Widget registration per the SA and will assign it after transition; Morisky does not currently hold registration.	Court: Even if infringement occurred, Morisky lacks the relevant registration now, so causal link to his registered copyrights is lacking.
Would an injunction preserve the status quo or upset contractual transition rights?	Morisky: Injunction needed to stop ongoing unauthorized licensing and protect IP.	Defendants: SA expressly authorizes pursuit of retroactive licensing (Exhibit 3) and contemplates transition; injunction would halt those authorized actions and delay SA remedies.	Court: Granting an injunction would upset the parties’ agreed status quo under the SA and potentially delay Morisky’s contractual remedies.

Key Cases Cited

eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (courts must apply traditional equitable principles when issuing injunctions)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four‑factor preliminary injunction test: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions plus balance tipping sharply can satisfy preliminary injunction standard)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2011) (must show causal connection between alleged harm and defendant’s conduct for irreparable harm finding)
California Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell–Jolly, 563 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm established when monetary relief cannot make plaintiff whole)
Sierra On‑Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo)
Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 762 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1985) (delay in seeking injunction can undercut claim of irreparable harm)
Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to demonstrate immediate threatened injury as prerequisite to preliminary relief)
Valeo Intell. Prop., Inc. v. Data Depth Corp., 368 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (example where three‑month delay undermined irreparable harm assertion)