Anova Applied Electronics Inc v. Inkbird Tech C L

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 11, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00845
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ANOVA APPLIED CASE NO. C23-0845JLR ELECTRONICS, INC., 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v.

13 INKBIRD TECH. C. L., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Plaintiff Anova Applied Electronics, Inc.’s (“Anova”) renewed 17 ex parte motion for injunctive relief to enjoin the distribution of certain products that 18 Anova alleges infringe upon its patent and trademarks. (Mot. (Dkt. # 18).) Anova 19 represents that it has provided notice of its motion by email to Defendant Inkbird Tech. 20 C.L. (“Inkbird”). (7/24/23 Billick Decl. (Dkt. # 23 at 5-8) ¶ 3.) It also states, however, 21 that it has not found a way to provide notice to Defendants Shenzhen Jingtaitengda 22 1 Technology Co., Ltd., which does business on Amazon.com as “Dreamytenda” 2 (“Dreamytenda”) and Shenzhenshi Yingbozhikong Keji Youxian Gongsi, which does

3 business on Amazon.com as “Mixtea360” (“Mixtea360”). (Id. ¶ 4.) None of the 4 Defendants have appeared in this action or responded to Anova’s motion. (See Dkt.) 5 The court has considered Anova’s motion, its filings in support of its motion, the balance 6 of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised,1 the court DENIES Anova’s 7 motion for injunctive relief. 8 II. BACKGROUND

9 Anova asserts that it is “a global company and a global leader in kitchen 10 appliances and accessories” and that its Precision Cooker sous vide2 cooking device “has 11 become the best-selling sous vide device on the market today.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶ 12.) 12 Anova holds United States Pat. No. 1,045,967 (the “’967 Patent”) which “is directed 13 towards a device which can be partially immersed in a vessel of water, such that a heater

14 in the vessel can maintain the temperature of the water within a defined range to allow 15 foodstuffs, packed in vacuum sealed bags, to be immersed in water and cooked.” (Id. 16 ¶ 13; see id., Ex. 1 (the ‘967 Patent).) Anova also holds two registered trademarks in its 17 Precision brand: Reg. No. 4,989,116 for “PRECISION” in connection with constant 18

19 1 Although Anova has requested oral argument (see Mot. at 1), the court finds that oral 20 argument would not be helpful to its resolution of the motion, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).

21 2 “The ‘sous vide’ technique of cooking involves cooking ingredients in a vacuum-sealed pouch submerged in water, typically at a long time at a low temperature.” (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) 22 ¶ 15.) 1 temperature immersion circulators for use in cooking and Reg. No. 6,392,242 for 2 “PRECISION” in connection with sous vide machines and electric sous vide cookers

3 (together, the “PRECISION Marks”). (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16; see id., Exs. 2-3 (registration 4 certificates).) 5 According to Anova, Defendants Inkbird, Dreamytenda, and Mixtea360 (together, 6 “Defendants”) infringed its patent and trademarks by manufacturing, importing, offering 7 for sale, and selling “certain ‘Inkbird Precision Cooker’ products” (the “Accused 8 Products”) in the United States. (Id. at 2.) Specifically, Anova alleges claims against

9 Defendants for infringement of the ‘967 Patent and the PRECISION Marks; unfair 10 competition, false designation of origin, and false and misleading representation in 11 violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); dilution in violation 12 of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); trademark infringement and 13 unfair competition in violation of Washington common law; and violation of the

14 Washington Consumer Protection Act, ch. 19.86 RCW. (Id. ¶¶ 24-90.) Anova seeks, 15 among other relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from 16 infringing the ‘967 Patent and PRECISION Marks; damages; treble damages for willful 17 infringement; and attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. at 27-30.) 18 On June 20, 2023, Anova filed an ex parte motion for a preliminary injunction in

19 which it asked the court to order Defendants “to immediately cease advertising, offering, 20 selling, and importing . . . in the United States” the Accused Products. (6/20/23 Mot. 21 (Dkt. # 10).) The court denied the motion on June 22, 2023. (6/22/23 Order (Dkt. # 14).) 22 The court explained that it “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the 1 adverse party” and instructed Anova that it could either renew its motion with proof that 2 it had given notice to Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) or

3 file a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without notice pursuant to 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b). (Id. 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1)).) 6 Anova has now filed a renewed motion seeking (1) a preliminary injunction 7 against Inkbird and (2) a TRO against Dreamytenda and Mixtea360. (See generally 8 Mot.) It again asks the court to “order all Defendants to immediately cease advertising,

9 offering, selling, and importing” the Accused Products in the United States, and it states 10 that it is prepared to post a bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). (Id. 11 at 19.) Anova represents that (1) it has given Inkbird notice of this motion by email; and 12 (2) because it does not have email addresses for Dreamytenda and Mixtea360, it has 13 initiated the process of serving these Defendants (and Inkbird) via the Hague Convention.

14 (See generally 7/24/23 Report (Dkt. # 23 at 1-4); 7/24/23 Billick Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) None of 15 the Defendants have contacted Anova about this dispute. (7/24/23 Billick Decl. ¶ 5.) 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue preliminary 18 injunctions and TROs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Preliminary injunctions and TROs are

19 “extraordinary remed[ies] never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 20 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). 21 The court applies the same standards when evaluating motions for preliminary 22 injunctions and motions for TROs. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 1 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A party seeking these forms of injunctive relief 2 “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer

3 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 4 [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The 5 Ninth Circuit also employs a sliding scale approach under which “‘serious questions 6 going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can 7 support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there 8 is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” All.

9 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). For the reasons set 10 forth below, the court concludes that Anova has not established a likelihood that it will 11 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief and DENIES Anova’s motion 12 for a preliminary injunction and TRO. 13 A plaintiff seeking an injunction “must make a clear showing that it is at risk of

14 irreparable harm, which entails showing a likelihood of substantial and immediate 15 irreparable injury.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 16 2012); see also Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 17 (9th Cir. 2013). The plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) “absent an injunction, it will 18 suffer irreparable harm”; and (2) “a sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged

19 harm to the alleged infringement.” Apple Inc., 695 F.3d at 1374. The movant “must 20 proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm”; it cannot rely on 21 “unsupported” or “conclusory” assertions of harm. Herb Reed Enters., 736 F.3d at 22 1250-51. It must also establish that remedies available at law, such as monetary 1 damages, are inadequate to compensate for the harm caused by continued alleged 2 infringement. Id. at 1250; see Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930

3 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he irreparable harm inquiry seeks to measure harms that no 4 damages payment, however great, could address.”). 5 Anova asserts that absent an injunction and TRO, it will “continue to lose market 6 share and reputation as an industry leader.” (Mot. at 16.) It reasons that because 7 households rarely purchase multiple sous vide devices, “when a person purchases a lower 8 cost competing device that infringes Anova’s intellectual property, Defendants gain an

9 unfair advantage by effectively removing that person from the potential buyer . . . pool 10 until a need to buy a new sous vide arises.” (Id.) It also asserts that “regardless of the 11 volume sold of Accused Products, Anova losing control over its PRECISION Marks is 12 sufficient basis to find the likelihood of irreparable harm.” (Id. at 17 (citing 2Die4Kourt 13 v. Hillair Capital Mgmt., LLC, 692 F. App’x 366, 369 (9th Cir. 2017)).)

14 Anova does not, however, present sufficient evidence to support its assertions of 15 irreparable harm. First, the only evidence Anova cites in its discussion of harm are 16 exhibits to its complaint comprised of screenshots of Defendants Dreamytenda and 17 Mixtea360’s Amazon product listing pages showing that the alleged infringing products 18 had garnered hundreds or thousands of views. (Mot. at 16-17 (first citing Compl., Ex. 4

19 at 4 (screenshot showing that the Inkbird WIFI Sous Vide Machine received 5,040 ratings 20 on Amazon.com); and then citing id., Ex. 5 at 14 (screenshot showing that the Inkbird 21 WiFi Sous Vide Cooker received 418 ratings on Amazon.com)).) The mere fact that 22 Amazon customers have reviewed Defendants’ products, however, is not enough to 1 convince the court that Anova will be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. Second, 2 contrary to Anova’s assertion that “losing control” over its PRECISION Marks is enough

3 to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm (id. at 17), the Ninth Circuit has made clear 4 that a finding of irreparable harm cannot be based “solely on a strong case of trademark 5 infringement;” rather, the movant must establish irreparable harm with evidence. Herb 6 Reed Enters., 736 F.3d at 1251 (reasoning that inferring irreparable harm from a strong 7 case of infringement “collapses the likelihood of success and the irreparable harm 8 factors” of the preliminary injunction test). Finally, even if Anova could establish its

9 claimed harms, it does not address, let alone provide evidentiary support for, the 10 requirement that monetary damages be inadequate to compensate those harms. (See 11 generally Mot.) Because Anova’s assertions of harm are merely conclusory statements 12 without evidentiary support, the court finds that Anova has not met its burden to establish 13 that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Accordingly,

14 the court DENIES Anova’s renewed motion for injunctive relief.3 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 //

19 // 20 //

21 3 Because Anova fails to demonstrate irreparable harm, the court need not address the other factors of the preliminary injunction test. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 22 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2011). 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Anova’s renewed ex parte motion

3 for injunctive relief (Dkt. # 18). 4 Dated this 11th day of August, 2023. 5 A 6 7 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22