2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-8-2005 

# Li veware Publ Inc v

. B es t S oftware Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1788

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" L ivewar e P ub l Inc v

. Be s t S oftwar e Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1466. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1466NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 04- 1788 and 04- 2028 LI VEWA RE P UBLI S HI NG I NC,

v. BES T S OFT W ARE I NC; ( D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 00206)

BE S T S OF T WARE I NC

v. D A N IE L L E V IN ( D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 00356)

L i vew ar e Publ i s hi ng I nc and D ani el L evi n, A p p e llan ts A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l N os . 02- cv- 00206 and 02- cv- 00356) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K entJ or dan Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary25, 2005 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, R E N D E L L and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 8, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge L i vew ar e Publ i s hi ng, I nc. s eeks r ever s al of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on ent er ed byt he D istri ct C o u rto n S ep tem b er 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 . L ivew are co n tend s tha t: (1) the D istri ct C o u rt e rre d in iss u in g th e p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n w h e re th e re w a s n o sh o w in g o f im m e d iate i r r epar abl e i nj ur yt o B es tSoft w ar e I nc. ; ( 2) the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n ent er i ng the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w i t houtr equi r i ng a bond; ( 3) the i nj unct i on i s an overbr oad pr i or restrai n t on sp ee ch ; and (4) the D istri ct C o u rterred in g ran ti n g B est’s req u est fo r a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on beca us e B es ti t s el f had “ uncl ean ha nds . ” O urj ur i s di ct i on overt he g r a n t i n g o f

a n i n j u n c t i o n i s b a s e d o n 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) . W e wi l l a f f i rm. I. A s w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, and the fa ct s ar e kn ow n to them , w e w i l l dis cuss onl yt hos e fa ct s per t i nentt o t hi s appea l . L i vew ar e i s a D el aw ar e corpor at i on thatow ns and l i censes a soft w are pr og ram cal l ed R & R R epo rtW ri t er. In 200 1, L i vew are and B est e n ter e d in to a lice n sin g a g re e m e n t w h ich p e rm itt e d B e st to in c o rp o ra te R & R in to its s of t w a r e pr od uc t , A br a Sui t e . I n 2 00 2, Li ve w a r e fi l e d s ui ta ga i ns tBes ti n the U . S. D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of D elaw are (he reina fter “th e D elaw are li ti g ati o n ”), al l egi ng contr actual cl ai m s forvi ol at i ons of thei rl i cens i ng agr eementand copyr i ght in f rin g e m e n t cla im s. P u rsu a n t to a n a rb itratio n p ro v isio n in th e lice n sin g a g re e m e n t, how ever , L i vew ar e’ s contr actual cl ai m s w er e s ubm i t t ed forarbi t r at i on i n A pr i l 2002. A ts ever al poi nt s dur i ng t he arbi t r at i on and l i t i gat i on the D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued3

w arni ngs t o L i vew ar e aboutt hr eat eni ng B es t ’ s bus i nes s part ner s and end- us er s us i ng A br a Sui t e w i t h copyr i ghti nfr i ngementl i t i gat i on. D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge M cK el vi e, w ho w as e arli er a ssign ed to the ca se, st ated in an A p ri l 20 0 2 o rde r i n ref ere n ce to L ivew are ’s cont act i ng B es t ’ s end- us er s and bus i nes s part ner s , “I don’ tthi nk i ti s a good i dea t o get t he cus t om er s i n t he mi ddl e of i t . I am not s ur e w hatl egi t i m at e bus i nes s r eas on i ts erves ot hert han t o puni s h a def endantand putthem atr i s k. ” The C our tfur t hers t at ed, “I am pr epar ed t o, i f y ourcl i entdoes n’ tvol unt ar i l yback a w ayfr om the mar ketpl ace . . . I am p r e p a r e d t o e n t e ra n o r d e rd i r e c t i n g [ L i v e wa r e ] t o b a c k a wa yf r o m i t . ” ( Ap p . a t6 A1 1 5 4 .) D espi t e t hese w arni ng s, on Jul y31 , 20 02 , L i vew are s ued on e of B est ’s bu si ness par t ner s , H um an R es our ces M anage m entG r oup ( “H R M G ”) , i n t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( her ei naft er“the Penns y l vani a l i t i gat i on”) fordi r ect a n d c o n t r i b u t o r yc o p yr i g h ti n f r i n g e me n t . I n No v e mb e r2 0 0 2 , Li v e wa r e a n d HRM G re a c h e d a stip u latio n o f se ttl e m e n t, bu t b yM a y2 0 0 3 , L iv e w a re h a d su c c e ss f u llym o v e d to have the s et t l ementvaca t ed and the Penns y l vani a l i t i gat i on r ei ns t at ed. I n t he meant i m e, o n M arc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e Jo rda n , w h o w as a ssign ed to the D elaw are l i t i gat i on aft erJ udge M cK el vi e r et i r ed, i s s ued an or ders t ay i ng the D el aw ar e l i t i gat i on pendi ng t he r es ul t s of the arbi t r at i on of the contr actcl ai m s . O n J ul y11, 2003, D i s t r i ct C our tJ udge D uB oi s fol l ow ed s ui tand s t ay ed the Penns y l vani a l i t i gat i on pendi ng the out come of t he arbi t r at i on.4

I n l i ghtof the r es um pt i on of the Penns y l vani a l i t i gat i on and the i s s uance of t hr eat eni ng e- m ai l s t o ot herbus i nes s part ner s , B es tm oved fors anct i ons forvi ol at i ng t he D istric t C o u rt’s p rio r o rd e r a n d a p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n p ro h ib iti n g L iv e w a re a n d its pr es i dent , D ani el L evi n, fr om cont i nui ng t o t hr eat en B es t ’ s bus i nes s part ner s and endu s e rs . S p e c if

ic a lly, L iv e w a re ’s c o n d u c t in c lu d e d a n e m a il to P e rr ym a n & A s s o c ia te s , a B e st b u sin e ss p a rtn e r, sta tin g th a t P e rry m a n ’s f a ilu re to c o o p e ra te w ith L iv e w a re w o u ld res ulti n the “even tual l oss of [it s] bu si ness, ” “utt er chaos, ” and “j ustl aw y ers , i njunct i on s, [ a n d ] d is c o v e ry re q u e s ts .” (A p p . a t 6 A -1 2 6 1 .) A ft era hea r i ng on t he mot i on on A ugus t8, 2003, the D i s t r i ctC our tfound, i nt er ali a, th at L ivew are ’s “e ff o rt s to ratt le th e c h ain o f th e b u sine ss en d u sers [ w e]re a n ef fo rt t o u p s e tt h e s t a tu s q u o a n d t o d i s tu rb th e o r d e r l yr e s o l u t i o n o f th e d i s p u t e ” ( a p p . a t3 A523) and thatdes pi t e bei ng w arned thr ee t i m es bythe C our tt o l eave thi r d par t i es outof th e d isp u te u n til th e u n d e rly in g iss u e s w e re re so lv e d , L iv e w a re h a d se n t an e -m a il t hr eat eni ng l i t i gat i on t o atl eas tone of Best ’ s bus i nes s part ner s and cont i nued w i t h t he P e n n s y lv a n ia litig a tio n a t th e p o te n tia l r is k o f f u tu re s a n c tio n s f

o r d u p lic a tiv e litig a tio n . C ons equent l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an i nj unct i on on Sept ember25, 2003 w hi ch forbade Li vew ar e and i t s pr es i dentfr om comm uni cat i ng i n anyw ay , “or al orw r i t t en, i ncl udi ng anydi r ectcont actorcomm uni cat i on thr ough emai l , l ett er , orot herw i s e, orany in d ire c t co n tac t o r c o m m u n ica tio n th ro u g h in ter m e d iar ies , p rin t m e d ia, o r e lec tro n ic m edi a, ” w i t h B es t ’ s bus i nes s par t ner s and A br a Sui t e us er s “r egar di ng the s t atus or5

s ubj ectm at t erof thi s l i t i gat i on, t he [Penns y l vani a] l i t i gat i on, and/ orthe arbi t r at i on. ” (A p p . 1 A -2 6 , 2 7 .) A fter the arb itrati o n co n clud ed in term s large lyfa v o rab le t o L ivew are , L ivew are fil ed a m o ti o n to rec o n side r th e inju n cti o n . O n F eb rua ry2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the mot i on w i t h t he di r ect i on thati t“w as open t o r econs i der i ng w hetherand w hat ki nd of i nj unct i ve r el i ef f orB es ti s appr opr i at e t o s t i l l keep the part i es fr om . . . di s rupt i ng t he fi nal r es ol ut i on of the ca s e her e. ” ( A pp. at4A - 625, 1A - 31. ) D es pi t e the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons , L i vew ar e s hor t l yther eaf t eri s s ued a pr es s r el eas e and a w eb- pos t i ng t hat “fl agrant l yviol at ed the t erm s of t he inj un ct i on . ” (A pp . at1A -31. ) Th e press rel ease a n n o u n c e d , “ L iv e w a re A w a rd e d $ 1 .3 M in A rb itr a tio n A g a in s t B e s t S o f tw a re !! ,” d e sc rib e d L iv e w a re a s b e in g “ v in d ica ted ,” a c c u se d B e st o f h a v in g lied to c u sto m e rs to avoi d t he cons equenc es of i t s br eac h of contr actw i t h L i vew ar e, and det ai l ed the P e n n sy lv a n ia litig a tio n . T h e w e b site a n n o u n c e m e n t als o e n c o u ra g e d A b ra S u ite u se rs to f ile a c las s a c tio n law su it ag a in st B e st. In a M arch 17 , 20 04 M em orandu m O rder , the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed B est ’s request fors anct i ons agai ns tL i vew ar e forvi ol at i ng the t erm s of the i nj unct i on, s t at i ng that L ivew are ’s co n d u ct “f

ita so rryp att ern o f b eh av ior i n this case . ” (A p p . at 1A -33 . ) In addi t i on, t he C our tr econs i der ed the i nj unct i on and conc l uded thati ts houl d s t and, s t at i ng t hat“[g] i ven the cont i nui ng l ack of fi nal i t yof the A rbi t r at i on aw ar d and i ndi cat i ons t hat L ivew are w il l seek to co n ti n u e this ca se re g ard less o f th e a w ard , an d g iven L ivew are ’s6

demonstr at ed penc hantfors eeki ng unfai radvant age bypus hi ng the l i t i gat i on pr oces s out o f o rd in a rya n d o rd e rlyb o u n d s, I a m p e rsu a d e d th a t n o m o d if ica tio n o f

th e In ju n c tio n is w a rr a n te d .” (A p p . a t 1 A -3 6 .) L i vew ar e now appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i s s uance of the Sept ember25, 2003 in ju n c tio n , arg u in g th a t th e re w a s n o sh o w in g o f “ im m e d iate irre p a ra b le in ju ry ” to B e st, t hatt he i nj unct i on s houl d nothave be en ent er ed w i t houta bond, thatthe i nj unct i on w as a n o v e rb ro a d p rio r re stra in t o f L iv e w a re ’s s p e e c h in v io latio n o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t, and thatB es t ’ s ow n “uncl ean ha nds ” s houl d have pr ecl uded i tfr om obt ai ni ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef. II. B efor e i s s ui ng a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tm us tcons i derw hether t he pl ai nt i ff ha s demonstr at ed ( 1) t hathe i s r eas onabl yl i kel yt o pr evai l eventual l yi n t he l i t i g a t i o n a n d ( 2 ) t h a th e i s l i k e l yt o s u f f e ri r r e p a r a b l e i n

j u r ywi t h o u tr e l i e f. I f

th e s e two t hr es hol d s how i ngs ar e made, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der s , t o t he ext entr el evant , ( 3) w hetheran i nj unct i on w oul d harm t he def endantm or e than deny i ng r el i ef w oul d harm t he pl ai nt i ff a nd ( 4) w hethergr ant i ng r el i ef w oul d s erve the publ i c i nt er es t . T enaf l yE ruv A s s ’ n v. B or ough of Tenafl y , 309 F. 3d 144, 157 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew the i s s uance of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, i ncl udi ng t he w ei ghi ng of fa ct or s i n thatdet erm i nat i on, for abus e of di s cr et i on; w e r evi ew fac tual det erm i nat i ons forcl earerr orand l egal concl us i ons a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . A c ie rn o v . N e w C a s tle C o u n ty, 4 0 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).7

“ O u r sc o p e o f

re v iew is n a rro w b e c a u se ‘th e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n is al m os tal w ay s bas ed on an a bbr evi at ed s etof fa ct s , r equi r i ng del i cat e bal anci ng . . . [s uch t hat ] i ti s t he r es pons i bi l i t yof the di s t r i ctj udge . . . . ’ ” Fr ank’ s G M C T ruck C t r . , I nc. v. G en. M ot or s C orp. , 847 F. 2d 100, 101- 02 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es St eel C orp. v . F raterna l A ss’n o f S teelha u lers, 4 3 1 F . 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 0 )). L iv e w a re c h a lle n g e s o n ly th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f in d in g o f ir re p a ra b le in

ju ry. L i vew ar e cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng i r r epar abl e i nj uryforthr ee re a so n s: (1 ) th e re w a s n o irre p a ra b le in ju rya s a m a tter o f

law ; (2 ) a s a m a tter o f

f a c t, L i vew ar e di d nott hr eat en t o s ue anyA br a Sui t e end- us er ; and ( 3) the D i s t r i ctC our thad a lre a d yf o u n d th a t B e st w o u ld n o t b e irre p a ra b lyin ju re d b yL iv e w a re ’s c o n tac tin g o f its bu si ness partners and en d-user s. L i vew are m ai ntai ns t hat there w as no irrepar able i njuryas a m at t er of l aw becau se a n yin ju ry B e s t s u s ta in e d w o u ld b e c o m p e n s a b le b ya n a w a rd o f m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s . A lth o u g h “ th e a v a ilab ili tyo f a d e q u a te m o n e tar yd a m a g e s b e lies a c laim o f irre p a ra b le i nj ur y , ” Fr ank’ s , 847 F. 2d at102, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatw i t houti nj unct i ve r el i ef, bot h B es tand the C our tw oul d s us t ai n i nj uryforw hi ch monet arydamages w oul d notbe adequa t e. H avi ng not ed Li vew ar e’ s cour s e of be havi orthr oughoutthe l i t i gat i on, the C our ts t at ed, “I f I ent ert he i nj unct i on that ’ s bei ng as ked for , i t ’ s an i nj unct i on that req u ir es y o u to ab ide b ythe p ri o r ord ers o f th is C o u rtan d to ab ide b ythe ru les th at are en ac ted in g o v ern m en t l it igation fo r th e f air ad m inistrati o n o f ju sti ce . ” (A p p . at 3A -48 5 . )8

T he C ou rtal so fou nd t hat Livew are’ s act i on s caused irrepar able harm t o B est ’s bu si ness rel at i on shi ps w i t h it s busi ness partners and en d-user s and “rat t l [ed] the ch ai n o f bu si ness end- us er s [i n] an ef

for tt o ups ett he s t atus quo and t o di s turb t he or der l yr es ol ut i on of the dis pu t e, ” despit e repeat ed w arni ng s bythe C ou rt . (A pp . at3A -523.) B ased on these det erm i nat i ons , w e bel i eve thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n concl udi ng that L i vew ar e’ s act i ons w oul d caus e i m m edi at e i r r epar abl e i nj uryboth t o B es tand t o t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce i f i nj unct i ve r el i ef w er e notgr ant ed. L ivew are co n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in f ind ing irrep ara b le i n

jury b e c a u s e , a s a m a tte r o f

f a c t, L iv e w a re d id n o t th re a te n to s u e a n yA b ra S u ite e n d -u s e r. Fi r s t , i ndul gi ng i n t he as s er t i on t hatthe di s t i nct i on betw een thr eat eni ng a bus i nes s par tner ver s us an end- us eri s even r el evantt o t he eva l uat i on of i r r epar abl e i nj ury , i ti s notcl ear that the b u sine ss p artne rs th at L ivew are threa tene d w ere n o t al so en d -use rs of the A b ra S u ite p ro d u c t. S e c o n d , L iv e w a re ’s c o m m u n ica tio n s v ia p re ss re lea se s a n d p o stin g s o n its w ebs i t e, bot h befor e and a ft ert he i s s uance of the i nj unct i on, w er e di r ect ed atthe publ i c at large , inclu d ing A b ra S u it e e n d -use rs. T h ir d , an d m o re im p o rt an t, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s f in d in g th a t L iv e w a re so u g h t to “ ra ttl e th e c h a in o f b u sin e ss e n d -u se rs [ in ] a n e f f o rt to ups ett he s t atus quo and t o di s turb t he or der l yr es ol ut i on of the di s put e” ( app. at3A - 523) i ndi cat es t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tappr eci at ed thr eat eni ng bus i nes s part ner s w oul d no doubt h a v e a n e f

f e c t o n e n d -u se rs o f

th e p ro d u c t. G iv e n o u r in ter p re tatio n o f th is f in d in g , itis n o t, as L ivew are su g g ests, clea r error. L ast, an d m o st i m p o rt an t, g iven that the C o u rt9

i ns t ruct ed Li vew ar e s ever al t i m es t o l eave both end- us er s and bus i nes s part ner s outof the di s put e, t he bus i nes s par t ner/ end- us erdi s t i nct i on i s i r r el evant ; the fa ctr emai ns that L i vew ar e thr eat ened l i t i gat i on agai ns tPerr ym an & A s s oci at es , a B es tbus i nes s part ner , at l eas tonce, and di d fi l e a s ui tagai ns tH R M G . T hi s conducti s al one a s uffi ci entbas i s for fi nd i ng i rr eparable i njuryt o b oth B estand the o rder l yadm i nis t rat i on of the proceed i ng s. Fi nal l y , L i vew ar e ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our t , s peci fi cal l yJ udge M cK el vi e, had alread ym ad e a fin d ing that B est w o u ld n o t be irrep ara b lyinjured b yL ivew are ’s cont act i ng i t s bus i nes s par t ner s and end- us er s . H ow ever , J udge M cK el vi e’ s A pr i l 5, 2002 O r derdeny i ng B es t ’ s r eques tfora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w as m ade a tan ea r l ys t age of t he li t i gati on , w el l befo re Livew are engag ed in com m un i cat i on s w i t h B est ’s bu si ness par t ner s and end- us er s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl at erdes cr i bed as “pus hi ng the l i t i gat i on pr oces s outof or di naryand or der l ybounds . ” ( A pp. at1A - 36. ) Fur t herm or e, J udge M cK el vi e hi m s el f w arned, “I am pre par ed t o, i f y ourcl i entdoes n’ tvol unt ar i l yback a w ay fr om t he mar ketpl ace . . . I am pre par ed t o ent eran or derdi r ect i ng [i t ] t o back a w ayfr om it . ” (A p p . at 6A -11 5 4 . ) In the M arc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 M em o ran d u m O rde r, the D istri ct C o u rt s t at ed thatL i vew ar e had be en “w arned and r e- w arned, fr om the ea r l i es ts t ages of the ca se, no t t o d era il o r i m p rop erlyco m p li ca te th e li ti g ati o n p roc ess b ythrea tenin g thir d p a rt ie s a n d s tir ri n g u p c la im s o f to rt io u s in te rf

e re n c e w ith c o n tr a c t.” (A p p . a t 1 A -3 4 .) A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in i s s ui ng t he i nj unct i on.10 III . L i vew ar e mai nt ai ns t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nj unct i on i s an overbr oad pr i or restrai n t on it s sp ee ch in v iolati o n o f th e F ir st A m en d m en t. F ir st, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s in ju n c tio n w a s n o t a p rio r re stra in t o n sp e e c h . T h e in ju n c tio n w a s is su e d to p ro h ib it L i vew ar e’ s cont i nued fa i l ur e t o heed the C our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on t o l eave thi r d par t i es outof t he di s put e unt i l t he under l y i ng i s s ues w er e r es ol ved, and the D i s t r i ctC our tfound i tw as nece s s aryt o s t op L i vew ar e fr om “di s rupt i ng the pr operand or der l yr es ol ut i on of [the] cas e. ” ( A pp. at1A - 30. ) I n t hi s s ens e, the i nj unct i on w as r eac t i ve, nota pr oact i ve bl anket pr ohi bi t i on of s peec h. N or t heas tW om en' s C t r . , I nc. v. M cM onagl e, 939 F. 2d 57, 63 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (“ A p rio r re stra in t is a c o n ten t-b a se d re stric tio n o n sp e e c h p rio r to its o cc u rren ce . ”). Second, as t o t he s cope of t he i nj unct i on, w e fi nd thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tt ook pai ns to en su re tha t th e inju n cti o n w as n o t ov erb roa d . T h e re str ict ion o n L ivew are ’s comm uni cat i ons w i t h B es t ’ s bus i nes s part ner s and end- us er s w as expr es s l yl i m i t ed t o “the s t atus ors ubj ectm at t er ” of the D el aw ar e l i t i gat i on, the Penns y l vani a l i t i gat i on, and the arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s t r i ctC our texpr es s l ys t at ed thati tw as not“or der i ng [ L iv e w a re ] to h a v e n o c o n tac t w ith e n d -u se rs.” (A p p . at 3 A -5 2 4 .) T h e C o u rt w e n t o n to expl ai n t he t erm s of the i nj unct i on bys t at i ng: “[I ] ti s noti m perm i s s i bl e fory ou t o have a fai rand open c ampai gn t o per s uade pe opl e thati t ’ s i n t hei ri nt er es tt o us e R & R W r i t eras oppos ed t o m ovi ng t o s om ethi ng el s e ordoi ng s om ethi ng di ffe r ent . T he C our thas never11

s ai d oreven i m pl i ed thaty ou need t o dum m yup i n t he mar ketpl ace . W hatthe C our thas t ol d y ou r epea t edl yi s y ou cannotus e thi s l i t i gat i on and cha r act er i zat i ons of thi s l i t i gat i on a n d sn ip p e ts o f

q u o tes f ro m ju d g e s o r f

ro m d o c u m e n ts f

iled in th is liti g a tio n a s a c lu b to hol d overpeopl e’ s heads i n eff ect , noti n eff

ect , i n r eal i t y , s ay i ng t o t hem y ou’ r e next . ” (A p p . at 3A -52 4 -25 . ) A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e tha t th e inju n cti o n w as n o m o re e x p a n siv e th a n w a s n e c e ss a ryto s afe guar d t he pr operand or der l yadmi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce. I V. L i vew ar e ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w i t ho ut a bond . T he d eci si on t o en t er a pr el i m i naryi njunct i on w i t ho ut a bond i nv olves a concl us i on of l aw t hatw e r evi ew de novo. Fr ank’ s , 847 F. 2d at101- 02. W e have s t at ed thatt he pos t i ng of a bond i s a r equi r ementpr i ort o t he ent er i ng of a n in ju n c tio n u n le s s th e re is n o ri s k o f m o n e ta ry lo s s to th e p a rt ys u b je c t to th e in

ju n c tio n . I d. at103. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thata bond w as notr equi r ed b ec au se th e inju n cti o n w h ich c o m p ell ed L ivew are to co m p lyw ith the C o u rt ’s prior o rde rs and enjoi ned L i vew are fr om dis cussi ng i t s l i t i gati on and arbi t rat i on w i t h B est ’s bu si ness par t ner s and end- us er s di d nots ubj ectL i vew ar e t o compensa bl e monet aryl os s es . I ns ofar a s th e in ju n c tio n w a s n e c e ss a ryto e n f o rc e th e C o u rt’s o w n o rd e rs, th e C o u rt d id n o t er r inW e a lso a g ree that “[ g ]i v en the c o n ti n u ing lack o f f inalityo f th e A rbitrati o n aw ard 1 and i ndi cat i ons t hatL i vew ar e w i l l s eek t o cont i nue thi s cas e r egar dl es s of the aw ar d, and gi ven Li vew ar e’ s demonstr at ed penc hantfors eeki ng unfai radvant age bypus hi ng the lit ig a tio n p ro c e ss o u t o f o rd in a rya n d o rd e rlyb o u n d s” (a p p . at 1 A -3 6 ), an yc o n c e iv a b le m o n e tar ylo ss L iv e w a re m a ysu sta in a s a re su lt o f th e in ju n c tio n is p ro p e rlyb o rn e so lely byL i vew ar e as t he natur al and for es eea bl e cons equenc e of Li vew ar e’ s r epea t ed v io latio n s o f

th e C o u rt’s in stru c tio n s. G iv e n L iv e w a re ’s a p p a re n t d isin c lin a tio n to se ttl e orcur t ai l t he D el aw ar e l i t i gat i on, t he Penns y l vani a l i t i gat i on, orthe arbi t r at i on, i t s pl ea fors ecur i t yagai ns tpot ent i al l os s es i ncurr ed bydecr eas ed s ett l ementval ues and cos t s of c o n tin u e d lit ig a tio n is s ig n if ica n tlyu n d e rm in e d a n d its a rg u m e n ts o n th is p o in t ar e w h o lly unper s uas i ve. 12 w a iv in g th e b o n d re q u ire m e n t. 1 V. L astl y , L ivew are arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in en teri n g the p reli m inary i nj unct i on beca us e B es ti t s el f had “ uncl ean ha nds . ” A s the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, no co n d u ct on the p art of

B est co u ld ex cu se L ivew are fro m co m p li an ce w ith the C o u rt ’s pr i oror der s . W e fi nd t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r ej ect i ng L i vew ar e’ s “uncl ean ha nds ” def ens e. V I. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AFF I RM .