Art,
I stand corrected. Your original statement was correct (although you reversed plaintiff and defendant in the patent infringement case).
lweekly.com
Under federal law, the general rule is that if an injunction issues erroneously, any resulting irreparable injury is not redressable because the error was an act of the court, not of the party who sought the injunction. Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Int'l Typographical Union, 471 F2d 872, 876 (CA 6, 1972). Similarly, in Michigan, at common law the general rule is that there is no tort liability for wrongfully suing out an injunction. In re Pritchard Estate, 169 Mich App 140, 149; 425 NW2d 744 (1988). Federal and state court rules provide exceptions to this general rule[see 4 below].
[4]
For example, with respect to the issuance of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, FRCP 65(c) and MCR 3.310(D)(1) provide for security, in the amount the court deems proper, for the payment of damages that "may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." MCR 3.310(D)(1) explicitly indicates the discretionary nature of this relief by stating that the court "may" require such security. Such express provisions of relief to a party injured by an injunction, if anything, underscore the continued viability of the general rule in Michigan and the federal system; to wit, that relief is not generally available to a party so injured apart from these rules. That the posting of security is not required of municipal corporations that seek injunctions, MCR 3.310(D)(2), does not, in our judgment, alter this inference.
THUS, Lexar Media is requesting SanDisk to post bond in case Lexar is "wrongfully enjoined or restrained" by the proposed preliminary injunction.
I can only come to one conclusion. SanDisk is confident that they will prevail. They have given sufficient time for Lexar to reflect on the situation. They have tried to settle the matter previously (and recently via court supervised Settlement Conferences). Lexar is asking to be wrestled to the mat. The injunction is the first attempt at a submission hold to end this misery. And if I recall correctly, SanDisk has used injunctions like this successfully in prior patent infringement cases against more formidable opponents.
Ausdauer
SanDisk...See the Big Picture |
