United States District Court, D. Nevada
EQUALIA, LLC and HOVBERBOARD TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
KUSHGO LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY (ECF NO.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendants Motion to Stay (ECF Nos. 54). The
Court has reviewed the parties' papers and heard oral
argument. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the
Equalia, LLC, and Hoverboard Technologies Corporation filed a
Complaint on Dec. 9, 2016. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed an
Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction on Dec.
28, 2016. ECF No 10. At the hearing on January 4, 2017, the
Court granted the TRO as to the CES trade show only. ECF No.
37. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on
January 10, 2017. ECF No. 42. The Court filed its written
order granting the TRO on January 11, 2017. ECF No. 43. The
Court held a hearing on the Motions for a Preliminary
Injunction, ECF Nos. 10, 42, on January 13, 2017. EF No. 51.
On January 20, 2017, the Court issued a nationwide injunction
barring Defendants from displaying, depicting, advertising,
marketing, or selling the Halo Board or any substantially
similar version thereof online or in any physical location
nationwide. ECF No. 50. On January 26, 2017, Defendants filed
the Motion to Stay pending appeal. ECF Nos. 54, 55.
Plaintiffs responded on January 27, 2017, and Defendants
replied on February 1, 2017. ECF Nos. 56, 57.
must apply the four factors that always guide our discretion
to issue a stay pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay
applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of
the stay will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
interest lies.” Standard Havens Products, Inc. v.
Gencor Industries, Inc., 897 F.2d 511, 512 (9th Cir.
four stay factors can effectively merge . . . [I]n
considering whether to grant a stay pending appeal, this
court assesses movant's chances for success on appeal and
weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public
. . . The more likely the plaintiff is to win, the less
heavily need the balance of harms weigh in his favor; the
less likely he is to win, the more need it weigh in his
favor.” Id. (internal citations and quotation
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain a
preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four
elements: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits,
(2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of
equities tip in its favor, and (4) that the public interest
favors an injunction.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD
Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th
Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
prove a likelihood of success on the merits in a case
alleging patent infringement, the plaintiff “must show
that, in light of the presumptions and burdens that will
inhere at trial on the merits, (1) it will likely prove that
[the Defendants infringe on the Plaintiffs'] patent and
(2) its infringement claim will likely withstand
[Defendants'] challenges to the validity and
enforceability of the . . . patent.” Genentech,
Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Raising a “substantial question” as to
“validity, enforceability, or infringement”
defeats a request for a preliminary injunction based on
patent infringement. Id.
Ninth Circuit has also held that a preliminary injunction may
issue under the “serious questions” test.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d
1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). According to this
test, a plaintiff can obtain a preliminary injunction by
showing “that serious questions going to the merits
were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
plaintiff's favor.” Id. at 1134-35
considering a preliminary injunction alleging patent
infringement, the precedent of the Federal Circuit applies to
substantive issues within the domain of patent law. See