Whitewater West Industries, LTD. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER denying Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 62 ]. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/26/2018. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01118

WHITEWATER WEST INDUSTRIES,
LTD., a Canadian corporation,

ORDER DENYING RENEWED
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
(Dkt. No. 62)

Plaintiff,
v.
PACIFIC SURF DESIGNS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and FLOW
SERVICES, a California corporation,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Whitewater”) renews it

20

motion for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Federal Rule of

21

Civil Procedure 65(a), on the ground that Defendants manufacture, sell, offer for sale,

22

use, import, or supply in or from the United States certain surfing attractions and related

23

components that infringe Whitewater’s exclusive patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,491,589 (the

24

“’589 Patent”). Defendants Pacific Surf Designs (“PSD”) and Flow Services, Inc.

25

(“Flow”) oppose the motion. Whitewater’s renewed motion is denied.

26
27
28

BACKGROUND
As mentioned previously, the ’589 Patent, entitled “Mobile Water Ride Having
Sluice Slide-Over Cover,” generally relates to an artificial surfing water ride usually
1
3:17-cv-01118

1

constructed for entertainment, often in a water park setting. The patent claims sheet-

2

wave technology, in which a thin flow of water moves over a stationary surface at a high

3

velocity, recreating something like ocean waves in an enclosed system that riders may

4

surf. The ’589 Patent improves on prior art by reducing the footprint of the ride through

5

shortening the transition surface between the water-injecting components and the lower

6

end of the ride surface. In the absence of an extended transition surface, the Patent

7

includes a cover over the water-injecting components to prevent rider contact. The

8

smaller size of the attraction reduces manufacturing and shipping costs, allowing the ride

9

to be installed in spaces previously not possible, while improving rider performance and

10

safety. The ’589 Patent is embodied in the “FlowRider” line of products sold by

11

Whitewater and its subsidiary and licensee.

12

As mentioned previously, the ’589 Patent has 57 total claims. Whitewater still

13

alleges that Defendants infringe at least claims 1, 3, 13, 15-17, 24-27, 29-38, 41-43, 50,

14

and 54-55 (the “Asserted Claims”). For purposes of this motion, Whitewater uses

15

independent claim 17 to establish that Defendants literally infringe at least one of the

16

Asserted Claims. Claim 17 recites:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

17. A cover for a water ride sluice gate from which a flow of water jets out,
comprising a contoured flexible pad, a connector configured to removably
affix the cover to said sluice gate, a flexible tongue at a downstream end of
the cover, the tongue configured to extend over the water that jets from said
sluice gate, and a generally flat portion at an upstream end of the cover, said
tongue being urged downward against the flow of water jetting from said
sluice gate.
(’589 Patent, Claim 17).
PSD is Whitewater’s competitor. Defendants’ allegedly infringing products

24

include the “ProFlow” line of surfing attractions, the Supertube attraction, and

25

refurbishment or replacement of the patented features existing in the FlowRider surfing

26

attractions. Whitewater’s previous motion for a preliminary injunction was denied

27

without prejudice. Whitewater now seeks to renew its motion by providing evidence of

28

causal nexus -- evidence that was previously insufficient.
2
3:17-cv-01118

1
2

LEGAL STANDARD
The legal standard has not changed. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary

3

and drastic remedy.” Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir.

4

2014) (quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008)). A plaintiff seeking a

5

preliminary injunction must establish that he is: (1) likely to succeed on the merits; (2)

6

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the

7

balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.

8

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); eBay, Inc. v.

9

MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006) (applying the four factor test to patent

10

disputes). The Winter factors are considered in conjunction with the Ninth Circuit’s

11

“sliding scale” approach, which provides that “the elements of the preliminary injunction

12

test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing

13

of another.” Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 737, 739 (9th Cir.

14

2011).

15
16

DISCUSSION
Previously, the Court found that a preliminary injunction was unwarranted because

17

Plaintiff could not establish a necessary requirement to show irreparable harm: i.e., that

18

there is a causal nexus between Whitewater’s harm and Defendants’ infringing product.

19

“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that it is likely to suffer

20

irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted and there is a causal nexus

21

between the alleged infringement and the alleged harm.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1368

22

(citing Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Apple

23

III”)) (emphasis added). The causal nexus requirement requires “proof that the

24

infringement causes the harm.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 809 F.3d 633, 639

25

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Apple IV”). This requirement “ensures that an injunction is only

26

entered against a defendant on account of a harm resulting from the defendant’s wrongful

27

conduct, not some other reason.” Id. at 640.

28
3
3:17-cv-01118

1

To satisfy the causal nexus requirement, a patentee must show that there is “some

2

connection” between the patented feature and the demand for the infringing product. Id.

3

at 642. In other words, the patentee must present evidence that the patented feature

4

“impact[s] consumers’ decision to purchase the accused” product. Id. A patentee may

5

satisfy the requirement by showing “that the infringing feature drives consumer demand

6

for the accused product.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed.

7

Cir. 2012) (“Apple II”). However, the patentee need not show that the infringing feature

8

is the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers purchased the accused product.

9

Apple IV, 809 F.3d at 642, 644. Rather, “it is enough” for the patentee to show that the

10

infringing feature is “related to infringement” and is “important to customers when”

11

examining their choices. Id. For instance, in Apple IV, the Federal Circuit held that

12

Apple demonstrated irreparable harm where it presented evidence that the patented

13

feature was one of several features that caused consumers to make their purchasing

14

decisions.

15

Previously, Whitewater had not presented any evidence that the patented feature

16

influences consumer demand for Defendants’ infringing products. Whitewater had

17

presented evidence that PSD advertises that its products contain a sluice gate cover.

18

However, Whitewater had not put forth any evidence that consumers value the cover

19

when making their purchasing decisions. There was no evidence that consumers would

20

not have purchased Defendants’ products if they lacked the cover claimed by the ’589

21

Patent. Nor was there any evidence about consumers’ preferences or desire for the

22

sluice gate cover. Consequently, Whitewater had not demonstrated that the patented

23

feature has caused and is causing harm.

24

Now, Whitewater offers the testimony of two witnesses who are consumers as

25

evidence of a causal nexus. See Declarations of Tim Gantz and Arthur Berry, III.

26

Whitewater also offers as evidence copies of emails between other persons not offered

27

under the penalties of perjury and without much context. See Exhibts 66-70 to

28
4
3:17-cv-01118

1

declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel Leanna Costantini, Esq. This evidence is also

2

insufficient to support a preliminary injunction.

3

The two witness declarations are virtually identical. In the penultimate paragraph

4

(¶3) each of the six sentences are identical, including an unusual phrase (“rider

5

throughput”) and a grammatical error (“it is desirable to maintain a [sic] small a footprint

6

as possible”). While the similarities do not necessarily mean that the declarations lack

7

truthfulness, it does mean that at least one of the witnesses is not testifying in his own

8

words. More importantly, however, both witnesses declare that they are decision-makers

9

in purchasing water park attractions for their respective businesses. They both declare

10

that they decided to purchase the Plaintiff’s FlowRider product. This proves the opposite

11

of a causal nexus. It proves that they decided to not purchase the allegedly infringing

12

product sold by the Defendants. More convincing evidence would be declarations from

13

purchasers who explained that the sluice gate cover is important and because Defendants’

14

product has it, they decided to buy the Defendants’ product instead of the Plaintiff’s

15

FlowRider. This type of evidence is absent.

16

Plaintiff also offers evidence of the number of FlowRider installations extant as

17

compared to other those of other makers and suggests that an inference of a causal nexus

18

may be drawn. Perhaps, but the inference would be based on too much speculation to

19

warrant a preliminary injunction.

20

CONCLUSION

21

Because evidence of a causal nexus remains insubstantial, Plaintiff’s renewed

22

motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED with prejudice.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: September 26, 2018

25
26
27
28
5
3:17-cv-01118