Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01745/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01745-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

- 1 - 06cv1745

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOBIAPPS, INC., a Texas corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1745-LAB (JMA)

[Related Case No. 

06cv1574-LAB (JMA)]

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Dkt No. 30]

vs.

QUAKE GLOBAL, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________

QUAKE GLOBAL, INC., a California

corporation,

Counter Claimant,

vs.

MOBIAPPS, INC., a Texas corporation;

INTRINSIX, INC., a Massachusetts

corporation; DOES 1 through 25,

inclusive,

Counter Defendants.

This matter came before the court on November 20, 2006 for hearing of

defendant/counter-claimant Quake Global, Inc.'s ("Quake") Application For Preliminary

Injunction. Quake sought to preventplaintiff/counter-defendant MobiApps, Inc. ("MobiApps")

from releasing and commercially marketing a particular satellite communicator product

Case 3:06-cv-01745-JLS-JMA Document 56 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - 06cv1745

Quake asserts in this litigation is based on its proprietary trade secrets. Stewart Brown,

Esq., Donald Sperling, Esq., and Thomas Berg, Esq. appeared for MobiApps or Intrinsix, Inc.

Maxwell Blecher, Esq. and John Andrew, Esq. appeared for Quake. Susan St. Denis, Esq.

and Thomas Hall, Esq. appeared telephonically, representing proposed intervenor

ORBCOMM. 

 Despite each side's objections to the evidence presented by the other, less stringent

evidentiary rules apply in the context of deciding requests for preliminary injunctive relief.

Applying the applicable legal standards, the court is unable to make any finding regarding

either party's likelihood of success on the merits at this point because of their diametrically

opposed positions and MobiApps' counter-proffer that it is not using Quake's module. For

the reasons more fully recited on the record, the court determined Quake did not carry its

burden as the moving party to show irreparable harm to itself if MobiApps is not prevented

from implementing the announced release of its satellite communicator product. Although

serious questions are raised, Quake will have contractual and trade secret legal remedies

if it prevails on the merits, undermining any finding it faces irreparable harm absent

preliminary injunctive relief, whereas MobiApps demonstrated exposure to injury much

greater to itself should the court grant the preliminary injunction. 

Finally, the court notes patent cases often proceed in the normal course without early

preemptive court intervention, and the public interest in smooth commercial operations

weighs against granting extraordinary injunctive relief in this case. Accordingly, for all the

foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Quake's Application For Preliminary Injunctive

Relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2006

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01745-JLS-JMA Document 56 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2