UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICHARD GOLDEN and BEAK & 

BUMPER, LLC, 

 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, 

v. 

JANG H. LIM d/b/a DENTAL 

USA, INC., 

 Defendant/Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-10795 

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

 This civil action initially came before this Court on Plaintiffs Richard 

Golden and Beak & Bumper, LLC’s Petitioner to Confirm Partial Final Arbitration 

Award. (ECF No. 1.1

) Plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration with the American 

Arbitration Association against Defendant Jang H. Lim for breach of a 2009 

settlement agreement, which the parties entered after Plaintiffs filed a patent 

infringement lawsuit against Defendant, as well as for willful patent infringement. 

On February 26, 2015, the arbitrator issued a partial final award finding that 

Defendant had breached several provisions of the 2009 settlement agreement, and 

that Defendant willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ patent. As a result of these findings, 

 1

 This action, filed on March 4, 2015, was initially assigned to United States 

District Court Judge Judith E. Levy, but was reassigned to the undersigned as a 

companion case in an order dated March 10, 2015. (ECF No. 2.) 

2:15-cv-10795-LJM-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 06/17/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 3241
2 

the arbitrator, among other things, permanently enjoined Defendant from selling its 

infringing product. 

 Despite agreeing to binding arbitration in the 2009 settlement agreement, 

Defendant initially refused to comply with the permanent injunction, selling the 

infringing product at dental trade shows. Although Defendant has now stopped 

selling the infringing product, this is not the result of voluntary compliance, but 

rather the result of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued by United States 

District Judge Laurie J. Michelson on March 23, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) 

 The Court held a hearing on April 20, 2015, during which the parties 

addressed Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. By the time of this 

hearing, Defendant had filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ petition to confirm as well as 

a motion to vacate the arbitration award. (ECF Nos. 17, 19.) Further, as of April 

16, 2015, Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for TRO and preliminary injunction had 

been fully briefed. At the conclusion of the April 20, 2015 hearing, the parties 

agreed to extend the TRO by sixty (60) days and Plaintiff deposited an additional 

$10,000 to cover the increased the security.2

 (ECF No. 21.) Without further action 

of the Court, the TRO will dissolve on Friday, June 19, 2015. 

 Since the April 20, 2015 hearing, the parties have completed the briefing of 

the petition to confirm as well as the motion to vacate the arbitration award. In 

 2

 The total amount that has been posted as bond to date is $30,000. 

2:15-cv-10795-LJM-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 06/17/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 3242
3 

addition to these briefs, several additional motions have been submitted by the 

parties: (1) Defendant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in support of 

his motion to vacate the arbitration award (ECF No. 23); (2) Plaintiffs’ 

supplemental petition to confirm final arbitration award (ECF No. 27); and (3) 

Defendant’s motion to dissolve the TRO and to stay the proceedings pending the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) ex parte reexamination 

proceeding (ECF No. 30). As of Wednesday, June 17, 2015, each of these motions 

was fully briefed. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the litigious nature of these 

proceedings to date, in responding to Plaintiffs’ supplemental petition to confirm 

final arbitration award Defendant expressed an intention to file a motion to vacate 

the May 8, 2015 arbitration award by August 8, 2015, which differs from the 

partial final award issued in February 2015 to the extent it resolved the attorney’s 

fees issue. (ECF No. 31, Pg ID 2663.) As with the other motions, the Court 

presumes that this forthcoming motion will be fully briefed. 

 As the recitation of the procedural history of this lawsuit may suggest, two 

realities make any action other than extending the current TRO improbable: the 

sheer volume of motions filed (the last of which was fully briefed on June 17, 

2015) and the fact that the Court cannot possibly rule on a motion that has not yet 

been filed (i.e., Defendant’s forthcoming motion to vacate the May 8, 2015 

arbitration award). For these reasons, the Court concludes that good cause exists to 

2:15-cv-10795-LJM-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 06/17/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 3243
4 

extend the TRO until the Court is able to resolve all of the pending motions in this 

action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 17, 2015 

 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Bridget M. Hathaway, Esq. 

Peter W. Gowdey, Esq. 

Dennis J. Levasseur, Esq. 

Edward L. Bishop, Esq. 

Nicholas S. Lee, Esq. 

2:15-cv-10795-LJM-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 06/17/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 3244