Lifescan, Inc. et al v. Shasta Technologies, LLC et al

Filing 110

ORDER MODIFYING INJUNCTION; DENYING MOTION TO STAY; SETTING BOND; GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting 99 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 100 Motion for Bond; granting 104 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 106 Motion to Stay. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LIFESCAN, INC., et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-06360-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: ECF Nos. 99, 100, 104, 106

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER MODIFYING INJUNCTION;
DENYING MOTION TO STAY;
SETTING BOND; GRANTING
MOTIONS TO SEAL

12

In this action for violations of the Lanham Act and related claims, Defendants move under

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) for a stay of the preliminary injunction that the Court issued

14

on May 21, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to stay the injunction is DENIED.

15

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ request to modify the injunction to permit Defendants to use their logos

16

and trade dress in ways that fall within the scope of the nominative fair use doctrine, as described

17

below, is GRANTED. The modified injunction will become effective when Plaintiffs post a bond

18

in the amount of $3,681,776.

19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Johnson & Johnson and LifeScan, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, bring this

21

action for violations of the Lanham Act and California’s Business and Professions Code against

22

Defendants Shasta Technologies, Decision Diagnostics, PharmaTech Solutions, and Conductive

23

Technologies. The gravamen of the complaint is that Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’

24

logos and trade dress on the packaging and advertisements for Defendants’ GenStrip creates the

25

impression that LifeScan endorses or sponsors that product.

26

On May 21, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction barring

27

Defendants from (1) using any image of Plaintiffs’ OneTouch meters on the packaging, labels, or

28

advertisements for the GenStrip, whether online or not; (2) using Plaintiffs’ OneTouch logos or

1

stylized font on the packaging, labels, or advertisements for the GenStrip, whether online or not;

2

and (3) shipping to consumers the 60,000 GenStrip units that they have sold without first

3

removing the packaging containing Plaintiffs’ logos and trade dress (“the injunction”). ECF No.

4

94 at 21-22.
Defendants filed a notice of appeal on May 23, 2013. ECF No. 98. They now move to

5
6

stay the injunction pending the appeal. ECF No. 106.
II.

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

A district court may stay an injunction while an appeal from the order granting the

9

issuance of the injunction is pending. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). The factors regulating the issuance of
a stay under Rule 62(c) are: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

12

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the

13

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776

14

(1987). “The first two factors of [this] standard are the most critical.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

15

418, 434 (2009).
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. It is

16
17

instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the

18

circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 420. “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of

19

showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34.
III.

20
21

22

A.

DISCUSSION

A Stay is Not Warranted
The Court concludes that a stay is not warranted. The four factors that the Court must

23

consider in determining whether a stay of the injunction is appropriate track the four factors that

24

the Court considered in granting the injunction. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)

25

(noting that “[t]here is substantial overlap” between the factors relevant to the issuance of a stay

26

pending appeal and “the factors governing preliminary injunctions”). The Court therefore denies

27

Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal for the same reasons articulated in the order

28

granting the injunction and for the additional reason that Defendants will be adequately protected
2

1

from any injury resulting from the injunction by the bond that Plaintiffs are required to post, as

2

discussed below.

3

B.

4

The Preliminary Injunction Is Modified
While an appeal from an order issuing an injunction is pending, a district court “may

5

suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the

6

opposing party’s rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c).

7

Defendants contend that the injunction is not narrowly tailored because it bars them from

8

using Plaintiffs’ OneTouch logos and trade dress on the instruction manual for the GenStrip and

9

from otherwise instructing consumers on how to use the GenStrip. Mot. at 9-10, ECF No. 106. In
response to these contentions, Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the injunction to explicitly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

permit the use of their logos or trade dress so long as any such use complies with the nominative

12

fair use test.

13

In light of these arguments, the Court modifies the injunction as follows:

14

1.

15

OneTouch logos or stylized font, on the packaging or labels for the GenStrip. Defendants

16

may continue to use the current FDA-approved GenStrip package insert, which includes

17

images of the OneTouch UltraMini meter.

18

2.

19

Plaintiffs’ OneTouch logos or stylized font, in advertisements for the GenStrip, whether

20

online or not, except that Defendants may use images of Plaintiffs’ OneTouch Ultra, Ultra

21

II, and UltraMini meters in their advertisements if they: (i) use no more than is reasonably

22

necessary to demonstrate the correct manner of use of the GenStrip, and (ii) do nothing in

23

conjunction with the use that suggests sponsorship or endorsement by LifeScan or Johnson

24

& Johnson.

25

3.

26

Defendants must include, immediately adjacent to the image of the meter (or part of a

27

meter), a prominent disclaimer of endorsement by or affiliation with LifeScan and Johnson

28

& Johnson. If the image is used in a print advertisement or on a web page, the disclaimer

Defendants shall not use any image of Plaintiffs’ OneTouch meters, or Plaintiffs’

Defendants shall not use any image of Plaintiffs’ OneTouch meters, or use

In any advertisement in which Defendants use any image of any OneTouch meter,

3

1

must be clear and conspicuous and must be in the same type (with respect to size and

2

boldness) as is used generally in the advertisement. If the image is used in a television or

3

online video advertisement, Defendants must include both a clear, conspicuous text

4

disclaimer that is displayed for at least four seconds, and a voiceover in which the text of

5

the disclaimer is read at the same speed and volume as other speech in the advertisement.

6

4.

7

GenStrip units that they have sold without first removing the packaging containing

8

Plaintiffs’ logos and trade dress.

9

C.

Additionally, Defendants are enjoined from shipping to consumers the 60,000

Plaintiffs Must Post a Bond of $3,681,776
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requires a party in whose favor a preliminary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

injunction is granted to post a bond to provide “for the payment of such costs and damages as may

12

be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). “Despite the seemingly mandatory language, Rule 65(c) invests the district

14

court with discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.” Johnson v. Couturier, 572

15

F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

16

Here, Plaintiffs argue that a bond of $650,000 would be sufficient to cover Defendants’

17

expenses in changing the packaging of the GenStrip and that, because Defendants are not barred

18

from selling the GenStrip, any bond amount need not include potential lost sales and lost profits.1

19

ECF No. 100.
On the other hand, Defendants argue that a bond in the amount of $3,681,776 is justified

20
21

because that amount would cover the expenses associated with changing the packaging and

22

advertisements at issue in addition to covering potential lost profits of 20% from June 2013 to

23

May 2014.2 ECF No. 103.

24

//

25

//

26
1

27
28

Plaintiffs move to file under seal portions of their motion for a bond and Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 of
the declaration of Catherine Williams. ECF No. 99. Because the material that Plaintiffs seek to
seal contains highly confidential business information, the motion is GRANTED.
2
No trial date has been set in this case. Defendants estimate that trial will be set for May 2014.
4

1

The Court concludes that a bond should compensate Defendants both for the costs of

2

changing the packaging and advertisements at issue and for any profits lost as a result of the

3

injunction. See, e.g., Honor Plastic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Lollicup USA, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1122,

4

1132 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (setting bond based on potential lost profits where defendant was enjoined

5

from using the plaintiff’s mark but was free to sell products that did not contain the plaintiff’s

6

mark). Because Defendants’ requested bond amount appears to be reasonable in light of their

7

projected sales and profit calculations from June 2013 to May 2014, their request to set the bond

8

in the amount of $3,681,776 is GRANTED. See Berman Decl. ¶¶ 6-9 & Ex. 2, 3; Schaeffer Decl.

9

¶¶ 7-8.3
IV.

10

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants’ motion to stay the injunction is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request to modify the

12

injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall post a bond in the amount of $3,681,776 within three

13

days of the date this order is filed. The modified injunction will become effective upon the

14

posting of the bond.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: June 24, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Defendants move to seal portions of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a bond, the
declaration of John Shaeffer, and the declaration of Keith Berman. ECF No. 104. Because the
material that Defendants seek to seal contains highly confidential business information, the motion
is GRANTED.
5