In an interesting turn of events, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a patent holder’s rare motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The case in question is FBA Operating Co. v. ETN Capital, LLC d/b/a Beech Lane (Case No. 5:23-CV-505-D, 2023 WL 6612439). The TRO aimed to cease the manufacture and sale of an allegedly patent-infringing product at the commencement of the lawsuit.
The TRO’s rejection is noteworthy given the rarity of such a motion in patent infringement cases. Unlike most fields where obtaining a TRO is relatively common, the pursuit of a TRO in patent infringement cases is infrequent. A TRO can provide immediate temporary relief from any potential harm by discontinuing the disputed activities until the court has a chance to hear the case.
Yet, in the instance of patent litigation, obtaining a TRO is often a challenging uphill battle. The patent holder must convince the court that they will suffer immediate irreparable harm without the TRO, that they have a solid likelihood of winning the case, and that the TRO would serve the public interest.
This recent decision by the North Carolina federal court can serve as a precedent for future cases. The conclusion sends a clear message to patent holders about the uphill battles that they may face in seeking immediate injunctions at the start of litigation proceedings.