The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Micron Technology Inc

Filing 79

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on April 11, 2013, DENYING 72 Motion for Injunctive Relief and DENYING 75 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. (MTS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 11 April, 2013 02:42:29 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-2288-SLD-JAG

Defendant.
ORDER
On January 14, 2013, Micron (specifically, Micron’s academic program manager) sent an
email to multiple recipients, including many University of Illinois engineering professors. The
email reads in part:

Because Micron remains a defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit that UIUC filed
against Micron in Federal court in Illinois on December 5, 2011, effective
immediately, Micron will no longer recruit UIUC students for open positions at any
of Micron’s world-wide facilities.
The letter also indicated that Micron will withhold funding from the University by suspending
student scholarships and professor research. The University characterizes this as a harassing
email meant to coerce it into settling its patent litigation lawsuit. It moves for an injunction
barring future harassing communications from Micron to any University employee. ECF No. 72.
Micron opposes the motion on several grounds and seeks sanctions against the University for
filing a vexatious and oppressive motion. ECF No. 74. Also pending is the University’s Motion
for Leave to File a Reply. ECF No. 75.

1

The University’s request to enjoin any future “harassing” communication is problematic
for at least three reasons. One, the term “harassing” is vague and likely violates Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65(d)(1)(C), which states that every order granting an injunction must describe
in reasonable detail the acts restrained. Based on the University’s overly broad request, it is
unlikely that the Court could tailor an injunction that is both meaningful and compliant with Rule
65. See, e.g., Nuxoll v. India Prairie Sch. Dist. #204, 523 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 2008); Daniels
v. Southfort, 6 F.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir. 1993). Two, enjoining future speech raises very serious
First Amendment concerns.

See Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993)

(“Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid
speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints.”); Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427
U.S. 539, 559 (1976) ("Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the
least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights"). Three, the University seeks to enjoin
an alleged injury that is unrelated to its underlying complaint of patent infringement. See
Johnson v. City of Rock Island, No. 11-cv-4058, 2012 WL 5425605, at *1-2 (C.D. Ill. 2012)
(“[A] District Court does not have jurisdiction to award a preliminary injunction for an injury
unrelated to any cause of action found in the complaint.”). Even if the Court construes the
University’s request as one for permanent relief, the University has shown no irreparable harm.
See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). For all these reasons, injunctive
relief is not a proper sanction and the University’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 72, is
DENIED.
The Court will next consider whether Micron’s request for sanctions against the
University should be granted. The Court will not sanction the University because it is Micron’s
behavior—not the University’s—that worries the Court. It is of course Micron’s prerogative to

2

stop recruiting the University’s students. Though Micron’s decision to shun the University’s
students is without tact, it is the manner in which that decision was communicated that is
particularly troublesome to the Court. The Court is very concerned if Micron made a calculated
decision to interfere with the litigation by attempting to force the University into submission.
But the University has not presented the Court with sufficient evidence to draw such a
conclusion. As such, the Court will take no further action at this time.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the University’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 72,
is DENIED. The University’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply, ECF No. 75, is likewise
DENIED.

Entered this 11th day of April, 2013.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3