Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03535/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03535-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-03535 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TRO ETC.

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 01/18/08**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

O’KEEFFE’S, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TECHNICAL GLASS PRODUCTS,

ANEMOSTAT AND PILKINGTON, PLC.

 Defendant.

Case Number C 07-03535 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1

REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[re: docket no. 68]

The Court has received Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)

filed January 11, 2008 and third-party Defendant Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) opposition

thereto filed January 16, 2008. For the reasons discussed below, the application for a TRO will

be denied and Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction will be set for hearing on February 1,

2008 at 9:00 a.m. 

I. BACKGROUND

The approval and installation of architectural glazing in locations which are either fire or

safety rated is highly regulated by code and by local building officials. Where there is a risk of

human impact (for example, when dealing with doors and immediately adjacent areas) glazing

Case 5:07-cv-03535-LHK Document 76 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 The instant action is stayed in part with respect to all of the claims and counterclaims 2

related to the ’906 patent pending the reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent

and Trademark Office or until further order of the Court. 

2

Case No. C 07-03535 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TRO ETC.

(JFLC3)

generally must meet impact standards, such as the ability to withstand up to 400 foot-pounds of

force. Similarly, when fire resistance is important (for example, when dealing with a fire

corridor) glazing generally must meet standards that reflect an ability to resist or protect against

fire for periods such as twenty, forty-five, sixty, or ninety minutes. Local building officials

generally do not perform tests for impact-safety or fire protection/resistance on a construction

site. Rather, building codes call for a “listed” or “rated” product, upon which the logo of an

accredited listing or rating agency is permanently affixed. There are two such major recognized

listing and rating organizations in the United States. UL is the largest and most recognized of

these organizations. 

Plaintiff is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,090,906 (“the ’906 patent”) entitled, “FireResistant Safety Glass,” which is directed at a filmed wire glass product that is sufficiently

impact safe and fire resistant to meet various government safety and fire code requirements. 

Complaint ¶ 9. Plaintiff markets this product as SuperLite I-W. Id. Defendants are competitors

in the wired glass manufacturing industry. Id. at ¶ 10. TGP fabricates, markets and sells a

product known as PyroShield NT. Id. at ¶ 13. Anemostat fabricates, markets and/or sells a

product knows as SAFE-Wire. Id. at ¶ 15. 

Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringement of the ’906 patent on July 6, 2007.2

Anemostat filed an answer denying Plaintiff’s allegations of patent infringement and asserting

affirmative defenses and counterclaims related to the ’906 patent, including non-infringement,

invalidity and unenforceability. TGP filed a similar answer and counterclaims and also asserted

additional counterclaims relating to trademark infringement and unfair competition based on

Plaintiff’s SuperLite I-XL product, including a claim that Plaintiff improperly was using the fire

rating listing of UL in an unfair and anti-competitive manner–allegedly with UL’s active

participation and assistance. Plaintiff alleges that in response to TGP’s counterclaim, UL told

Plaintiff to drop its suit or “UL will terminate your listing, and you wont be able to sell your glass

Case 5:07-cv-03535-LHK Document 76 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. C 07-03535 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TRO ETC.

(JFLC3)

to anyone.” TRO Motion, pg. 1. On November 28, 2007, UL cancelled Plaintiff’s listing. 

Plaintiff seeks a TRO enjoining UL’s cancellation of its listing. Plaintiff argues that if injunctive

relief is not granted it will suffer immediate and irreparable injury. 

II. DISCUSSION

The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. 

Brown Jordan International, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp.2d 1152, 1154 (D.

Hawaii 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320,

1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show

either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in the

movant’s favor. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-02 (9th Cir. 1998); Apple Computer, Inc.

v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). These formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the

probability of success decreases. Roe, 134 F.3d at 1402. 

UL sent Plaintiff a notice of termination on November 28, 2007. Plaintiff does not

explain why it did not seek a TRO sooner. Based upon the limited evidence before it, the Court

is not persuaded that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if a TRO is not issued immediately. 

The Court is to prepared to hear Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the very near

future. Accordingly, the application will be denied. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s application for a TRO is DENIED;

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is set for hearing on February 1, 2008

at 9:00 a.m. Each party may file a supplemental brief in support of or in 

opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, not to exceed fifteen (15)

pages in length, on or before January 25, 2008.

DATED: January 18, 2008 ________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03535-LHK Document 76 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 07-03535 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TRO ETC.

(JFLC3)

This Order has been served on the following persons:

Daniel T. Bernhard 

bernhard@freelandlaw.com 

Jeffrey Stewart Love

jeffrey.love@klarquist.com 

David John Massey Pitman 

dpitman@fulpat.com 

Kimball Anderson

kanderson@winston.com

Case 5:07-cv-03535-LHK Document 76 Filed 01/18/08 Page 4 of 4