Hill-Rom Company, Inc. et al v. General Electric Company

Filing 69

OPINION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (See order for specifics). Copies distributed to all counsel of record on 7/15/2014.Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar and filed on 7/15/2014. (bgra)

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

JUL 1 5 2014
CLERK. US DISTRICT COURT
OLK VA

HILL-ROM COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL NO. 2:14cvI87

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Hill-Rom Company, Inc.. Hill-Rom Services.

Inc.. and Hill-Rom Manufacturing. Inc.'s ("Plaintiffs'* or "Hill-Rom") Motion for Preliminary

Injunction. ECF No. 8. for the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
DENIED. The matter has been fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on the instant

Motion on July 7. 2014. at which time the Court took the Motion under advisement to further
consider the voluminous filings from both parties. The Motion is ripe for decision.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Circuit has said that preliminary injunctions are a "drastic and extraordinary

remedy" that should not routinely be used. Nat'l Steel Car. Ltd. v. Canadian I'ac. Rv.. Ltd.. 357
F.3d 1319. 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There arc four factors to consider when determining whether

to grant a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case: 1) likelihood of success on the
merits; 2) irreparable harm; 3) the balance of hardships: and 4) the public interest. Celsis In
Vitro. Inc. v. Cell/Direct. Inc.. 664 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

At the very least, the movant must establish the first two elements in order for the Court
to issue a preliminary injunction. Anton/Bauer v. PAG, 329 F.3d 1343, 1348 (fed. Cir. 2003).
1

Regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, a preliminary injunction "should not issue if
the party opposing the injunction raises "a substantial question concerning infringement or
validity."" Oaklev Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Infl. 316 F.3d 1331. 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Tate
Access Floors, 279 F.3d 1357. 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). A "substantial question" is one that the
movant cannot prove lacks substantial merit. Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

The four factors this Court must consider weigh against granting a preliminary injunction
in this case. The most salient of the factors in the present case is the second, concerning

irreparable harm. The Court FINDS that the Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing that,
without a preliminary injunction, they will suffer irreparable harm. General Electric Company

('"GE") is a very large and well established corporation; any harm that Hill-Rom may suffer from

GE manufacturing and selling its AgileTrac Hand Hygiene System ("AgileTrac") can be
quantified and the Plaintiffs will be able to be made whole. There is no question that the
Plaintiffs will be able to collect on a judgment, should they win one.
The Court further FINDS that Hill-Rom has not met its burden to show a likelihood of

success on the merits, the other most critical factor. GE has raised substantial questions as to

whether it has infringed the asserted patents in this case. Much ado, for example, was made over
whether GE's AgileTrac system tracks workers' movement or only their present location (albeit

very frequently). Claim 1 of patent number 6,727,818 ('•the '818 patent") claims a system that
determines "whether a person who has entered a patient contact zone has washed her hands since
her most recent exposure to a contamination zone other than her current exposure to the patient
contact zone." Exh. A to Cmpl., pg. 26. ECF No. 1-1 (emphasis added). In this sense, the '818

patent claims systems that record movement—or have "memory" of workers" prior locations—
and use that information to determine hand hygiene compliance. GE represents that their system

docs not track movement in this sense: AgileTrac apparently requires all workers to wash their
hands when entering certain designated rooms, without any memory of their prior location or

past hand-washing actions. Thus there is a substantial question about whether GE's system

infringes the '818 patent on the movement, or "memory," claim alone. Similar substantial

questions have been raised by GE regarding the other two asserted patents. Thus, the factor
regarding the likelihood of success on the merits weighs against granting a preliminary
injunction.

Finally, the Court FINDS that the last two factors are neutral for Hill-Rom. In the
balance of hardships, both companies could lose some sales—although it is hotly disputed how
valuable those sales are, as well as how much hand hygiene tracking systems are driving them—

but Hill-Rom, like GE, is a very large corporation and would be able to withstand a temporary

loss which could be remedied with a moneyjudgment. And although Hill-Rom represents that its

hand hygiene tracking system could be installed in hospitals if GE is enjoined from continuing to
support AgileTrac, there would inevitably be a delay and cost in doing so, which would

potentially put current patients at higher risk of contracting disease from preventable healthcare
associate infections; thus, the public interest docs not clearly weigh in Hill-Rom's favor.
In sum, the two most important factors to consider—likelihood of success on the merits
and irreparable harm—weigh against Hill-Rom. while the final two factors arc somewhat neutral.
The Court thus FINDS that a preliminary injunction in this situation would not be appropriate.
However, in the interest of efficiency, the Court has set an expedited schedule for trial so that
Hill-Rom can obtain whatever relief to which it is entitled, if any. as soon as reasonably possible.

1 Conversely, if AgileTrac infringes the '818 patent, there is a substantial question about the patent's
validity in light of the prior art identified by GE.
3

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
ECF No. 8.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all Counsel of Record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

' ••-W Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Norfolk/VA
July 742014