LegalMetric Research reports that success rates on contested preliminary injunction motions in patent cases is 30% nationwide. But the success rate varies by district. California Central’s win rate is 38% and New Jersey’s win rate is 40%. Here is the link to LegalMetric. Its full report costs several hundred dollars.
The report includes:
District and individual judge analysis of over 1300 Preliminary Injunction rulings.
Win rates for all districts having at least one decided Preliminary Injunction Motion in patent cases.
Length of time from motion filing to decision for all decided Preliminary Injunction Motions in patent cases.
In response, Starbucks argued that an injunction was unnecessary because Kraft failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. Starbucks stated that it had the undisputed right to terminate the contract at any time because Kraft had materially breached the terms by failing to perform its obligations under the contract by “withholding sales presentations and other materials” and failing to improve Starbucks’ declining sales, thereby releasing Starbucks of its obligations under the contract. (Response, pp 6). Further, pursuant to the termination provision of the underlying contract, the damages that Kraft would suffer would be compensable by money damages based on Kraft’s alleged harm of losing the exclusive right to distribute a product through Starbucks. Kraft is the largest food company in North America, and revenues from Starbucks account for 1% of Kraft’s annual revenue. (Response, pp 16).
Is this numerical value significant enough to demonstrate irreparable harm to Kraft? Starbucks said no and cited the following cases. In Litho Prestige, Div. of Unimedia Group, Inc. v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 804, 808 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), the court stated that an argument that a four percent business loss would cripple the plaintiff was “wholly unpersuasive”. In Reiter’s Beer Distribs., Inc. v. Christian Schmidt Brewing Co., No. 86 CS 534, 1986 WL 13950, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1986), the court found no irreparable harm where sales of beers at issue constituted between 17% and 29% of distributor’s total sales. Based on these holdings, the potential 1% loss of Kraft’s annual revenue is far from demonstrating irreparable harm.
Two months after Kraft denied Starbucks’ offer, Starbucks accused Kraft of materially breaching the contract and informed Kraft that it would be terminating the contract effective March 1, 2011, unless Kraft “cured the alleged breaches within 30 days,” resulting in Kraft’s filing a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction. (Complaint, ¶ 58). In its complaint, Kraft alleged that Starbucks made misleading statements to the press, its investors and Kraft’s customers by “falsely maligning Kraft’s performance” in order to avoid the amount of money that Starbucks would be obligated to pay Kraft for its material breach of the business contract. (Complaint, ¶ 1).
Kraft argued that Starbucks’ breach allegations lacked merit because Kraft’s overall performance under the contract and its “effective in promoting Starbucks Products ha[d] been outstanding by any reasonable measure,” and that Starbucks’ attempt to terminate the contract without complying with its disputed resolution provisions was improper. (Complaint, ¶ 61, 67). Further, Kraft argued that Starbucks’ issuance of a press release impugning Kraft’s performance was misleading and caused an interference with Kraft’s customer relationships. (Complaint, ¶ 76).
Kraft’s argument that it would suffer irreparable harm if injunction was not granted was as follows: 1) Kraft would lose its right to arbitration, 2) Starbucks would continue to publicize the purported termination of its contract with Kraft thereby confusing the market, and 3) Kraft would have no adequate remedy at law, and “money simply [would] not be able to compensate Kraft for the damage that will ensue to its business and reputation.” (Complaint, ¶ 131).
Kraft Foods filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction relief against Starbucks in attempt to protect its twelve-year relationship with the Coffee Company and to provisionally restrain Starbucks from acting on its purported termination of the contract with Kraft. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation, Case Number 7:10-cv-09085 S.D.N.Y.).
Under the contract, Starbucks manufactured and supplied the Starbucks branded products to Kraft, and Kraft owned the exclusive right to sell, market and distribute certain packaged Starbucks roasted whole bean and ground coffee to Kraft’s customer base of grocery stores and other retail food outlets. This contract between the parties had an initial term that would expire in 2014 and an automatic renewal for successive ten-year terms.
In 2010, Starbucks decided that it wanted to take over Kraft’s portion of the business and sought to terminate its contract with Kraft. Pursuant to the contract, Starbucks had the express right to terminate its relationship with Kraft as long as it 1) provided 180 days’ advance notice, and 2) compensated Kraft for the loss of its rights under the contract in an amount tied to fair market value of the business. Starbucks gave notice to Kraft and offered $750 million in exchange for a consensual termination of the contract to which Kraft declined alleging that $750 was not the fair market value of its business. (Agreement, ¶ 5).
If a plaintiff wins partial summary judgment with proof that the defendant falsely advertised a product, is the plaintiff automatically entitled to a permanent injunction? On August 20, 2010, United States District Court Judge Sue J. Robinson answered no.
The standards for deciding whether to implement a permanent injunction were set forth in eBay v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006). While the plaintiff argued that literal falsity warranted a permanent injunction, the Court agreed with the defendant that the eBay factors applied: irreparable injury, absence of a monetary remedy, the balance of hardships, and the public interest all had to be taken into account, notwithstanding that likelihood of success had been conclusively and finally proved.
In a prior post, I discussed the Supreme Court case Merck v. Reynolds, in which the application of the discovery rule in securities fraud cases was at issue. To recap, the Supreme Court granted cert to decide if the two-year statute of limitations ran from the first possible evidence of fraud as argued by Merck or the discovery of scienter as argued by the plaintiffs.
On April 27, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its decision and it is a victory for shareholder class actions! The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations does not run until a plaintiff discovers all of the elements of a claim. The six-judge majority decision, written by Justice Breyer, and a concurrence, written by Justice Scalia, disagree on whether the statute provides for constructive discovery – oddly putting Justice Scalia on the side of allowing more time to file a suit as he reads the statute as requiring actual discovery of scienter.
A factor in the Court’s reasoning requiring evidence of scienter and not possible evidence of scienter is the heightened pleading standard in securities fraud claims. Under federal securities law, a plaintiff needs to plead specific facts regarding intent to defraud. The limitations statute states that the period begins on the discovery of a violation. As a violation does not occur without the requisite intent to defraud, discovery (or constructive discovery) of scienter, not possible scienter, is necessary for the limitations period to start. The five-year statute of repose countered Merck’s argument that the discovery requirement will subject defendants to defend litigation after the facts were stale.
Alas, the opinion likely does not extend beyond the statute in which it arose. It is, however, an opinion that goes against the pro-business leanings of the Court as of late and is especially noteworthy for its unanimity in allowing the suit to proceed.
A few days after the Court granted the Bank of America’s motion for an ex parte TRO, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), in its capacity as receiver for Colonial Bank, was substituted as the real party in the case, and moved the court to dissolve the TRO. The FDIC argued that, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (j), the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to restrain the FDIC in exercising its powers and functions as a receiver. Because the Court determined that the sale proceeds and loan agreements, which the Bank seeks the return of, are outside the receivership estate, it denied the FDIC’s jurisdiction argument.
Of interest to me today, however, is the fact that the FDIC admitted, in its motion to dissolve the TRO, that the Court properly issued the injunction. While declining to torture the FDIC with this admission, the Court noted that there may have been “public interest considerations contemplated by the injunctive-relief analysis,” in light of Colonial Bank’s collapse and subsequent involvement of the FDIC, but the FDIC’s failed to raise the issue. The FDIC could have strengthen its motion if it demonstrated how the four factor test weighed against the issuance of an injunction, emphasizing the public interest in supporting the FDIC in its role as receiver.
Bank of America, N.A. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (Receiver for Colonial Bank), Case No. 09-22384-CIV-JORDON, currently before U.S. District Court Judge Adalberto Jordan of the Southern District of Florida, has garnered some media attention in the Atlanta Business Chronicle and The New Times, but is of interest to us in today’s post because the court granted an emergency motion for an ex parte TRO in a billion dollar case.
Facts
Bank of America (“the Bank”) filed a lawsuit on August 12, 2009 against Colonial Bank (Colonial) to obtain the return of loan agreements, mortgages and sale proceeds valued in excess of a billion dollars. The Bank had sent Colonial a demand for all sale proceeds and loan agreements held by Colonial Bank. Colonial refused to return the loans, and the Bank filed suit for breach of trust and other agreements.
Motion for an Emergency ex parte TRO
Along with the complaint, Colonial filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO), which sought to enjoin Colonial from liquidating, transferring or otherwise encumbering the assets. The motion recited the familiar four-factor test, but is of interest to me today for these three reasons:
The Bank didn’t rest solely on its motion; as new developments occurred, it filed supplemental papers. This is important because TROs are decided on the papers alone, so if new information develops after you have filed your motion, be sure to update the court with new information. Used appropriately, it builds momentum: “yesterday these terrible events took place; today it got worse; Judge please stop them!”
The Bank used newspaper stories effectively. Under Fed. R. Evid. 902(6), newspaper stories are admissible. The Bank intelligently used this Rule.
The Bank used supplemental sources of law. Rather than relying solely on its agreements (which should have and probably would have been sufficient), the Bank also asserted Fla. Stat. § 812.035(6), which relaxes the traditional “irreparable harm” requirement in cases involving civil theft, and instead only requires the movant to make “a showing of immediate danger of significant loss[.]” It is a good practice to always search for supplemental sources of law that may assist you in stating a claim.
Our next post will discuss a few other interesting aspects of this case.
The owner of a computer school that suffered a crippling burglary of high-tech equipment came to us after losing a trial--while he was represented by a different lawyer--against his insurance company. He had immediately sought compensation from his insurance company...More...
