Asetek Holdings, Inc et al v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 359

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE AND DENYING MOTION TO SUSPEND INJUNCTION by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 349 Motion to Intervene; denying Motion Suspend Injunction. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

7

Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CMI USA, INC.,

10

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND DENYING MOTION
TO SUSPEND INJUNCTION
Re: ECF No. 349

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court is Cooler Master Co., Ltd.’s (“Cooler Master”) Motion to Intervene and

12
13

Motion to Suspend the Injunction. The Court will grant the Motion to Intervene and deny the

14

Motion to Suspend the Injunction.

15

I.

BACKGROUND1

16

Plaintiff Asetek Danmark A/S2 filed this suit against Cooler Master Co., Ltd. (“Cooler

17

Master”) and CMI USA Inc. (“CMI”), fka Cooler Master USA Inc., for patent infringement of

18

claims 14, 15, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,240,362 (“’362 patent”) and claims 1-15, 17, and 18

19

of U.S. Patent No. 8,245,764 (“’764 patent). Asetek asserted that the following products infringed

20

its patents: Cooler Master Seidon 120M, 120XL, and 240M; Cooler Master Seidon 120V and

21

120V Plus; Cooler Master Glacer 240L; and Cooler Master Nepton 140XL and 280L. ECF No. 1;

22

ECF No. 130 at 1. Cooler Master and CMI jointly designed the infringing products, and CMI

23

serves as Cooler Master’s distributor in the United States. ECF No. 198 (Transcript 12/08/2014)

24

560:9-561:2.

25
1

26
27

Earlier orders have set forth the background of this dispute in detail. See ECF Nos. 249, 322.
The Court here provides only the limited facts necessary to provide the context for the motions
before it.
2

28

Plaintiff Asetek Holdings, Inc. was originally also a plaintiff but was dismissed in October 2014
for lack of standing. ECF No. 112.

1
2
3

In September 2014, the parties stipulated to dismiss Asetek’s claims against Cooler Master
with prejudice. ECF No. 84.
The case was tried to a jury in December 2014. ECF No. 189. On December 17, 2014, the

4

jury returned a verdict in Asetek’s favor, finding that the accused products infringed on both the

5

’764 and ’362 patents. ECF Nos. 218, 219.

6

Thereafter, the parties filed various post-trial motions, including CMI’s renewed motion

7

for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial, and Asetek’s motion for a permanent

8

injunction and motion for supplemental damages. ECF Nos. 266, 267, 269. This Court denied the

9

motion for entry of judgment as a matter of law, denied the motion for a new trial, granted the
motion for entry of permanent injunction, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to alter

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the judgment. ECF No. 322.

12

In granting the entry of the permanent injunction, the Court found that Cooler Master

13

should also be subject to the injunction as a party in “active concert or participation” with CMI.

14

See ECF No. 322 at 28–29 (citing to FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d)). The Court discussed the substantial

15

relationship between CMI and Cooler Master and Cooler Master’s direct participation in the

16

conduct to be enjoined. Id. at 23. The Court noted evidence showing that CMI collaborated with

17

Cooler Master in designing, selling, and setting prices for the liquid-cooling products at issue in

18

the case. Id.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The injunction states in full:
(1) As used herein, “Infringing Products” shall mean the following
Cooler Master products: Seidon 120M, Seidon 120XL, Seidon
240M, Seidon 120V, Seidon 120V Plus, Nepton 140XL, Nepton
280L, Glacer 240L, and products not more than colorably different
from them.
(2) CMI USA, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies
(collectively defined as “CMI”), as well as CMI’s successors,
assigns, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees,
representatives and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with them who receive notice of the order are hereby
immediately and permanently restrained and enjoined, pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 283 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), from making, using,
offering for sale or selling in the United States, or importing into the
United States, or causing to be made, used, offered for sale, or sold
in the United States, or imported into the United States, the
Infringing Products.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(3) Cooler Master Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries and affiliated
companies (collectively defined as “Cooler Master”), as well as
Cooler Master’s successors, assigns, officers, directors, agents,
servants, employees, representatives and attorneys, and those
persons in active concert or participation with them who receive
notice of the order are hereby immediately and permanently
restrained and enjoined, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(d), from making, using, offering for sale or selling in the
United States, or importing into the United States, or causing to be
made, used, offered for sale, or sold in the United States, or
imported into the United States, the Infringing Products.
(4) Within 14 days of issuance of this order, CMI and Cooler Master
shall provide written notice of this judgment and order, and the
injunction ordered herein, to: their officers, directors, agents,
servants, representatives, attorneys, employees, subsidiaries and
affiliates, and those persons in active concert or participation with
them. CMI and Cooler Master shall take whatever means are
necessary or appropriate to ensure that this order is properly
complied with.
(5) CMI and Cooler Master shall include a copy of this Order and
the written notice in paragraph (6) below along with every bill of
sale for the Infringing Products and in the boxes in which the
Infringing Products are shipped or sold, regardless of where they are
sold, indicating that they infringe the patents-in-suit, are subject to
an injunction in the United States, and thus cannot be sold, offered
for sale, imported, or used in the United States.
(6) The written notice to be provided along with every bill of sale
and in the boxes in which the Infringing Products are shipped to or
sold in the United States shall state:
This product is affected by a Permanent
Injunction entered by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-00457-JST (copy
enclosed). This product or its use infringes U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764, which are
assigned to Asetek Danmark A/S. Accordingly,
certain acts associated with this product are
prohibited.
This product may not be sold, offered for sale, or
used in the United States. Nor can this product be
imported into the United States.
Id. at 33–34. The injunction specifically restricts Cooler Master from selling or importing the

25
infringing products into the United States and requires that written notice be included in every bill
26
of sale and box shipped.
27
On September 30, 2015, CMI filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
28
3

1

Federal Circuit. ECF No. 323. On October 21, 2015, Cooler Master also filed an appeal,

2

challenging the Court’s Order denying CMI’s post-trial motions and granting in part Asetek’s

3

post-trial motions. ECF No. 343. Cooler Master appeals “all interlocutory orders, decisions,

4

and/or rulings that preceded or otherwise relate to the Order.” ECF No. 343 at 2. On October 30,

5

2015, Cooler Master filed the instant motion to intervene and motion to suspend the injunction.

6

ECF No. 349.

7

II.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

8

A.

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) allows parties to intervene in actions as of right:

10

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that
is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately
represent that interest.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Legal Standard

To be entitled to intervention as of right, “(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must
claim a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction which is the

15
subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as
16

a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s

17
interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action.” Wilderness Soc. v. U.S.
18
Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v.
19
United States, 921 F.2d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 1990)). Courts considering 24(a) motions follow
20
21

“‘practical and equitable considerations' and construe the Rule ‘broadly in favor of proposed
intervenors.’” Wilderness Soc., 630 F.3d at 1179 (quoting United States v. City of Los Angeles,

22
288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002)).
23
B.

Discussion

24
Cooler Master argues that the Court must grant intervention as of right because Cooler
25
Master claims an interest to the injunction imposed by the Court. ECF No. 329 at 3. Asetek,
26
while disputing some of the allegations in the motion to intervene, does not oppose the motion to
27
intervene. ECF No. 355 at 3. The Court agrees that Cooler Master meets the requirements to
28
4

1

intervene as of right.
First, Cooler Master’s motion to intervene is timely. Typically, “a post-judgment motion

2
3

to intervene is timely if filed within the time allowed for the filing of an appeal.” U.S. ex rel.

4

McGough v. Covington Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1992). Although Cooler

5

Master filed its motion to intervene after the time allowed for the filing of an appeal, Cooler

6

Master timely filed a notice of appeal. See ECF No. 343; FED. R. APP. P. 4(a). Accordingly, and

7

in light of the fact that Asetek does not oppose Cooler Master’s motion to intervene, the Court will

8

consider the motion timely.
Second, Cooler Master claims an interest relating to the injunction. The injunction

9

requires Cooler Master to include a copy of the injunction and a written notice with every bill of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sale for the infringing products, regardless of where they are sold, indicating that the products are

12

subject to an injunction in the United States. ECF No. 322 at 33–34. Cooler Master argues that

13

the injunction requires it to include the notice about the patent infringement in the United States

14

for products that are lawfully sold overseas. Cooler Master further contends that the injunction

15

harms its reputation outside of the United States. ECF No. 349-1, Wang Decl. ¶ 5. The Court

16

finds that Cooler Master claims an interest in the transaction that is the subject of the action.
Third, Cooler Master is not a party to the litigation but is a party to the injunction because

17
18

the Court determined that Cooler Master acted in concert with CMI. ECF No. 322 at 28–30.

19

Cooler Master’s ability to protect its interest may be impaired if not permitted to intervene in the

20

action.

21

Fourth, Cooler Master plausibly alleges that CMI, the existing defendant in the action, may

22

not adequately represent Cooler Master’s interests. (Asetek is adverse to Cooler Master and is

23

obviously a poor candidate to represent the latter’s interests.) CMI is the sole distributor of Cooler

24

Master-branded devices in the United States. See ECF No. 198 (Transcript 12/08/2014) 560:9-16.

25

Although CMI opposed the inclusion of Cooler Master in the proposed injunction, see ECF No.

26

287 at 14–15, ECF No. 313 at 3, Cooler Master contends that CMI does not deal with Cooler

27

Master’s activities in regions outside of the United States. For this reason, the Court finds that

28

CMI may not adequately represent Cooler Master’s interests.
5

Finally, Cooler Master properly served its request to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of

1
2

Civil Procedure 5. Cooler Master served process electronically by filing its request to intervene

3

on the case docket. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(3); Civil L.R. 5-1(h)(1).
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion to intervene.

4
5

III.

MOTION TO SUSPEND INJUNCTION

6

A.

Legal Standard

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) authorizes the Court to suspend an order granting an
injunction pending appeal. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might

9

otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United

10

States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). A stay is, instead, “an exercise of judicial discretion . . . .” Id.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

(quoting Virginian Ry. Co., 272 U.S. at 672–73. “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of

12

showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433–34.
“The standard for determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal is similar to the

13
14

standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12–

15

cv–00630–LHK, 2012 WL 2576136, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2012) (citing Tribal Vill. of Akutan

16

v. Hodel, 859 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988). In making this determination, a court balances four

17

factors:
“(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.”

18
19
20
21

Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

22

The standard for granting a stay is a continuum. “[I]f there is a ‘probability’ or ‘strong

23

likelihood’ of success on the merits, a relatively low standard of hardship is sufficient,” but “if the

24

balance of hardships tips sharply in . . . favor’ of the party seeking the stay, a relatively low

25

standard of likelihood of success on the merits is sufficient.” Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City and

26

County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lopez v. Heckler, 713

27

F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). The first two factors “are the most critical.” Nken, 556 U.S. at

28

434.
6

1

B.

Discussion

2

Part of the injunction requires CMI and Cooler Master to include written notice about the

3

infringement action in future sales of the infringing products with every bill of sale and boxes

4

shipped. Cooler Master requests that the Court suspend the written notice portion of the

5

injunction, arguing that the injunction restrains Cooler Master’s lawful foreign activities. ECF

6

No. 349 at 6. CMI opposes the request, arguing that Cooler Master fails to show that a stay is

7

warranted and that Asetek continues to be harmed in the United States by the sale of Cooler

8

Master’s products. ECF No. 355 at 2.
Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the Court’s permanent injunction order, the Court

10

is not convinced that Cooler Master has met its burden of showing that a stay of the injunction is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

warranted pending appeal.

12
13

1.

Whether Cooler Master Has a Substantial Case for Relief on the Merits

Courts use different formulations to describe the first Nken factor, including “reasonable

14

probability,” “fair prospect,” “substantial case on the merits,” and “serious legal

15

questions . . . raised.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir. 2012). These formulations

16

“are largely interchangeable,” and “indicate that, ‘at a minimum,’ a petitioner must show that there

17

is a ‘substantial case for relief on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Leiva–Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962,

18

968 (9th Cir. 2011). “The standard does not require the petitioners to show that ‘it is more likely

19

than not that they will win on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Leiva–Perez, 640 F.3d at 966).

20

Cooler Master argues it is likely to succeed on appeal “to the extent [the Injunction]

21

purports to affect Cooler Master’s lawful foreign activities that are not in active concert with

22

CMI.” ECF No. 349 at 6. In its motion, Cooler Master relies on Spine Sols., Inc. v. Medtronic

23

Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro,

24

Inc., 152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998), to show that Cooler Master’s overseas sales are the types of

25

“activities on which judicial restraint cannot be imposed and must be avoided.” ECF No. 349 at 6.

26

Cooler Master cites to Spine Sols. to argue that an “injunction’s extraterritorial restraints

27

[were] vacated for abuse of discretion.” ECF No. 349 at 7. In Spine Sols., however, the district

28

court permanently enjoined sales of products that were outside of the United States. Spine Sols.,
7

1

620 F.3d at 1320. The district court prevented the “using, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise

2

transferring any of the accused devices that have already been exported.” Id. (internal quotation

3

omitted). The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the “overseas sales of the [defendant’s]

4

products cannot infringe any U.S. patent, and there is little risk that the infringing devices will be

5

imported.” Id. The Federal Circuit found “the extraterritorial portion of the injunction appears to

6

be premised solely on [defendant’s] past infringement, not on the prevention of future

7

infringement” and was therefore an abuse of discretion. Id. Unlike the injunction at issue in Spine

8

Sols., the Court’s injunction in the instant action does not prevent the sale of overseas products.

9

The injunction is designed to address future infringement by products that may be imported to the
United States, by requiring that the infringing products contain written notice. See id. at 1320

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(“An injunction is only proper to prevent future infringement of a patent, not to remedy past

12

infringement.”).

13

Cooler Master’s reliance on Johns Hopkins is similarly unavailing. In Johns Hopkins, the

14

district court ordered the repatriation and destruction of six vials, containing product that infringed

15

a patent, which had been exported to Canada. Johns Hopkins,152 F.3d at 1365. The vials were

16

exported prior to the issuance of the patent, and the court found that the vials “standing alone” did

17

not infringe the patent. Id. at 1366. Thus, Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its

18

discretion because “[t]he repatriation aspect of the order does not enjoin activities that either have

19

infringed the [] patent or are likely to do so and thus does not prevent infringement . . .” Id. As

20

the court emphasized, an injunction may reach extraterritorial activities, “even if these activities

21

do not themselves constitute infringement,” but it is necessary “that the injunction prevent

22

infringement of a United States patent.” Id. at 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original).

23

On reply, Cooler Master also argues the injunction is improper because it restrains Cooler

24

Master’s “wholly independent” conduct that is not in active concert with CMI. Cooler Master

25

relies on Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390 (Fed. Cir.

26

1996), to support its argument. Additive Controls concerned meters used to measure the flow of

27

one liquid into another (also called “flowmeters”). Id. at 1391. Flowdata accused Additive

28

Controls of infringing its patent, and prevailed at trial. Id. at 1392. Before judgment was entered,
8

1

Additive Controls’ president ‒ who was not a named party to the litigation ‒ formed two

2

companies to manufacture flowmeters that Flowdata accused of infringing its patent and located

3

two companies to distribute the flowmeters. Id. When Flowdata brought these facts to the district

4

court’s attention, the court modified the injunction to name the president and all four of the entities

5

involved in the manufacture or distribution of the new flowmeters. Id. The order required the

6

entities not to destroy their inventory of product, directed them to provide an accounting, and

7

ordered royalty payments. Id. The district court noted that none of the corporate entities had been

8

parties in the underlying infringement case, but concluded that the entities and the agent had acted

9

in concert with the enjoined infringing party. Id. at 1392–93.

10

The four corporate entities appealed, and the Federal Circuit vacated the paragraph of the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

district court’s injunction adding them as restrained parties. Id. at 1391. The Federal Circuit

12

stressed that although the four corporate entities had a relationship with the agent of an infringing

13

party, this did not justify imposing injunctive relief against the corporate entities. Id. at 1396. The

14

Federal Circuit differentiated between the propriety of holding the corporate entities in contempt

15

for assisting the agent with violating the injunction and the impropriety of “granting injunctive

16

relief against the non-party in its separate capacity.” Id. at 1395–96. The Federal Circuit noted

17

that the injunction against the entities meant that the entities did not have the opportunity to

18

contest the assertion that their products infringed on the patent. Id. at 1397. In effect, the patent

19

owner sought permanent injunctive relief against the four corporate entities without an

20

adjudication of infringement against them. Id.

21

The present case is not like Additive Controls. First, in this case there was sufficient

22

evidence ‒ including Cooler Master and CMI’s exclusivity agreement and Cooler Master and

23

CMI’s joint development of the infringing products ‒ for the Court to determine that they were

24

working in active concert. In other words, Cooler Master was working in active concert with an

25

infringing party. See ECF No. 322 at 31–32. Second, the injunction entered by this Court does

26

not prevent Cooler Master from selling products outside of the United States or require that Cooler

27

Master destroy the products the jury found to have infringed Asetek’s patent. The injunction

28

simply restricts CMI and Cooler Master from importing to or selling in the United States the
9

1

infringing products and requires that written notice regarding the injunction be included in future

2

sales.

3

Cooler Master’s next argument is that because it was dismissed with prejudice from the

4

underlying action, it cannot be made a party to the injunction. ECF No. 349 at 7; ECF No. 357 at

5

5–6. Cooler Master argues that because Asetek stipulated to dismiss Cooler Master from the

6

action with prejudice, “Cooler Master has been effectively found not to have infringed the patents-

7

in-suit at all.” ECF No. 357 at 6 (emphasis in original).

8

Cooler Master cites no authority to support this argument, and it does not persuade the
Court. As Cooler Master correctly states, the effect of Asetek’s dismissal with prejudice is that

10

Asetek is precluded from reasserting the same claims against it in a subsequent action. But that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

does not give Cooler Master a free pass to assist an adjudicated infringer going forward in

12

violating Asetek’s patent rights.

13

Because the injunction imposes no unnecessary restraints on lawful activity, and because

14

Cooler Master is an appropriate subject of the injunction under Rule 65(d)(2), Cooler Master does

15

not have a substantial case for relief on the merits.

16

2.

Whether Cooler Master Has Demonstrated Irreparable Harm

17

Next, Cooler Master argues it will suffer irreparable harm to its reputation in regions

18

outside of the United States absent the stay. ECF No. 349 at 7. For a stay to issue, there must be a

19

likelihood that substantial irreparable harm will be immediate in the absence of a stay. See

20

Realtek Semiconductor, Corp. v. LSI Corp., No. C-12-3451-RMW, 2014 WL 2738226, at *4

21

(N.D. Cal. June 16, 2014) (denying permanent injunction); Apple, 2012 WL 2576136, at *1

22

(standard for issuing stay similar to that for preliminary injunction).

23

Cooler Master contends that notice of the injunction will confuse its European and Asian

24

customers and will create doubt regarding the legitimacy of Cooler Master’s products. ECF No.

25

357 at 8. As a preliminary matter, this harm is too speculative to satisfy the “irreparable injury”

26

test. Realtek, 2014 WL 2738226, at *4. Moreover, the written notice is designed to limit

27

domestic infringement and specifies that the products are subject to an injunction in the United

28

States and cannot be sold in or imported to the United States. See ECF No. 322 at 30–34. The
10

1

statement is not confusing or misleading. It is also true. Cooler Master has not established the

2

irreparable harm it will suffer if this portion of the injunction is not suspended.

3

3.

4
5
6

Whether Issuance of the Stay will Substantially Injure Other Parties’
Interests

As to the third factor, Cooler Master argues in a few short sentences that “neither Asetek
nor CMI can claim to be injured within the purview of this action by a stay of the Injunction . . . .”
ECF No. 349 at 8. The argument ignores the Court’s prior finding that Asetek would suffer

7
irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. ECF No. 322 at 21–26. Allowing Cooler Master
8
to introduce infringing products into global commerce without taking reasonable steps to prevent
9

their importation into the United States harms Asetek’s legitimate interests. The Court finds that

10
Cooler Master has not met its burden as to this factor.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
4.

12

Whether the Public Interest will be Harmed by a Stay

As to the public interest, Cooler Master says only that its “lawful, non-infringing sales to

13
regions outside of the United States are unrelated to the public interest in connection with this
14

action.” ECF No. 349 at 8. Once again, Cooler Master ignores the purpose and effect of the

15
injunction, which is to prevent importation of infringing products into the United States and to
16

prevent Cooler Master from acting in concert with CMI to violate Asetek’s patent rights. These

17
prohibitions do not extend to lawful activities outside the United States. As the Court previously
18
discussed, the public has an interest in the protection of property rights. ECF No. 322 at 27–28.
19

Because the injunction is designed to prevent future, domestic infringement, Cooler Master’s

20
argument that the public interest will not be harmed by the stay is unconvincing.
21
Having balanced the Nken factors, the Court finds that Cooler Master has demonstrated a
22
low probability of success and that the balance of hardships tips in favor of Asetek. The Court
23

will deny Cooler Master’s request to suspend the injunction.

24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
11

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4
5

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants Cooler Master’s Motion to Intervene and
denies Cooler Master’s Motion to Suspend the Injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2016

6
7
8

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12