In August 2019, the Northern District of Illinois issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Shure from taking various actions relating to its ceiling tile beamforming mi- crophone array product, the MXA910:

Shure shall cease manufacturing, marketing, and selling the MXA910 to be used in its drop-ceiling mounting configuration, including marketing and selling the MXA910 in a way that encourages or al- lows integrators to install it in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration .

J.A. 119 (emphasis added). The MXA910 had four instal- lation configurations, only one of which, the drop-ceiling mounting configuration, potentially infringed. However, during bond briefing, Shure explained that it could “not control which configuration is used,” so halting sales “in one configuration effectively halts sales in all configura- tions.” J.A. 2311. The injunction prohibits Shure from sell- ing a product that “allows” integrators to install it in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. Because Shure could not prevent integrators from installing the MXA910 in that configuration, Shure was prohibited from selling it alto- gether. From the bond briefing, it is clear that Shure un- derstood the preliminary injunction to prevent all MXA910 sales. Id. Shure did not appeal the preliminary injunction; instead, it attempted to design around and released the MXA910-A.

ClearOne moved for an order holding Shure in con- tempt, arguing Shure’s commercial activities relating to *3 the MXA910-A violated the preliminary injunction. The district court determined that the MXA910-A was not col- orably different from the MXA910 and that Shure’s MXA910-A was designed in a way that allows integrators to install it flush with most ceiling grids in the allegedly infringing drop-ceiling mounting configuration. J.A. 24, 34. Accordingly, the district court held Shure in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction and ordered it not to “manufacture, market, or sell the MXA910-A (to the ex- tent that it still has any MXA910-As to sell).” J.A. 34. Though we do not have jurisdiction over a contempt order under the current posture of the case, Shure argues this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the contempt order modified the injunction.

Shure argues the district court expanded the prelimi- nary injunction when it enjoined all sales of the MXA910- A, instead of just prohibiting the MXA910-A when used in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. The preliminary in- junction’s plain language and Shure’s representations dur- ing bond briefing demonstrate why this case lacks merit. The district court’s contempt order determined the MXA910-A was a colorable imitation of the MXA910 and faithfully applied the preliminary injunction—which barred sales if the product was capable of being installed in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. To the extent Shure believes the preliminary injunction is too broad, it should have appealed that order. The order before us does not modify the injunction, and therefore, we have no juris- diction over this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dis- miss.

DISMISSED OSTS

Costs to ClearOne.