Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06654/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06654-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XIAOHUA HUANG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NEPHOS INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 18-06654 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pro se plaintiff Xiaohua Huang moves for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction — ten months after filing the instant action — to prohibit defendant Nephos Inc.

“from selling its networking chips” within the United States, “especially selling its chips to

Amazon.com Inc.” (Dkt. No. 67 at 1). The motion is DENIED.

In seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, plaintiff must

demonstrate that: (1) serious questions going to the merits were raised, (2) the balance of

hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, (3) there is a likelihood of irreparable harm, and

(4) that the injunction is in the public interest. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

1127, 1134–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (incorporating factors from Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839

n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[O]ur analysis is substantially identical for the injunction and the TRO.”).

Here, plaintiff has failed to establish, at the very least, a likelihood of irreparable harm. 

Plaintiff complains that defendant has not yet produced relevant source code, continues to file

Case 3:18-cv-06654-WHA Document 68 Filed 08/30/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

motions to strike plaintiff’s infringement contentions, is refusing to “pay any royalty and

damage[s]” to plaintiff, and lowballed plaintiff during settlement discussions (Dkt. No. 67 at

4–5). He contends that without a temporary restraining order, defendant “will never show

respect to the Court and [plaintiff’s] intellectual property” and will “make million USD [sic] in

selling its chips to Amazon.com Inc. alone” (id. at 5). None of these contentions show

irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s failure to establish this factor alone is sufficient to deny his motion

for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-06654-WHA Document 68 Filed 08/30/19 Page 2 of 2