United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 10-2415

CONTOUR DESIGN, INC.,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

CHANCE MOLD STEEL COMPANY, LTD.,

a/k/a Chance Mold Company Ltd.;

EKTOUCH COMPANY, LTD.,

Defendants, Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph N. Laplante, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Chief Judge,

Boudin and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Thomas J. Moore with whom Bacon & Thomas, PLLC, Peter G.

Callaghan and Preti Flaherty Beliveau Pachios PLLP were on brief

for appellants.

Jordan L. Hirsch with whom Michael J. Summersgill and Wilmer

Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellee.

August 11, 2011
BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. This is an interlocutory appeal

from a district court order preliminarily enjoining

defendants-appellants Chance Mold Steel Company, Ltd. and EKTouch

Company, Ltd. ("Chance") from selling computer mouse products

similar to or derived from those made by plaintiff-appellee Contour

Design, Inc. ("Contour"). Because a merits trial has now been held

and the preliminary injunction will shortly be superceded, only

brief discussion is required.

Contour designs, manufactures, and sells ergonomic

computer mice. In 1995, Contour contracted with Chance to

manufacture its products in bulk. Contour's founder, Steven Wang,

chose Chance based on assurances that Chance would keep Contour's

product design information secret. The parties formalized that

understanding in a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA") dated June 15,

1995, which has a term of 20 years.

After identifying the "Product" as inventions, designs,

methods and related information concerning computer mouse products, 

Section 1 of the NDA precludes Chance from disclosing, using, or

copying Contour's "Confidential Information," and Section 3 of the

NDA further prevents Chance from duplicating, producing,

manufacturing, or otherwise commercially exploiting the Product, or

developing other products derived from the Product.

For almost 15 years, Chance manufactured different

computer mouse products for Contour and kept confidential all of

-2-
Contour's product information, but, in 2009, Chance began to make

near copies of two Contour mice and concedes that it used Contour's

production tooling to make them. Contour then filed suit against

Chance in federal district court in New Hampshire charging Chance

with violating the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.H.

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 350-B:1 to -B:9 (2011), and with breach of

contract.

In November 2010, after an evidentiary hearing, the

district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and

recommendation and entered a preliminary injunction against Chance. 

Among other things, Chance was ordered to stop producing the two

mice or any other products derived from the two Contour mice from

which the Chance counterparts had been derived. Chance appealed

from the preliminary injunction and this court heard argument.

Following argument, the panel concluded at semble that

Contour had adequately shown that it was likely to prevail on the

merits and that the other familiar considerations--irreparable

injury, the equities and the public interest, Naser Jewelers, Inc.

v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27, 32 (1st Cir. 2008)--were

consistent with relief. However, because a trial was scheduled to

be held, the court made no announcement, expecting that the

preliminary injunction would be supplanted by a final injunction

and other possible relief. See, e.g., Smith v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.,

-3-
270 U.S. 587, 588-89 (1926); In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human

Rights Litig., 94 F.3d 539, 544 (9th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases).

On May 24, 2011, after a six-day trial, a jury found that

Chance had misappropriated Contour's trade secrets and breached the

NDA, awarding $7.7 million in damages. At present, there are

post-trial matters pending in the district court and a permanent

injunction has yet to be framed. However, the district court may

be awaiting disposition of this appeal before entering final

judgment including a permanent injunction.

Because copying of Contour's mice was more or less

conceded, the principal issues raised by Chance on this appeal

concerned the validity and breadth of the NDA. Chance urged, in

particular, that what was protected under the NDA was unclear, that

the agreement was too vague to be enforced, and that in all events

the NDA should be read to protect only the Contour mice in

existence in 1995 and not those that Contour created afterwards and

asked Chance to produce for Contour.

But to the extent that the NDA's bare language might be

viewed as ambiguous, the district court was entitled to consider

the contract as a whole and any extrinsic evidence that might cast

light on the parties' mutual intent. See, e.g., Birch Broad., Inc.

v. Capitol Broad. Corp., 13 A.3d 224, 228 (N.H. 2010). At the time

of the preliminary injunction, Contour had pointed to various

circumstances supporting its position, including the duration of

-4-
the NDA--hardly consistent with protecting only an existing

product--and extrinsic evidence of discussions between the parties.

There is no reason to describe in detail that evidence 

which may have taken a different form at trial, nor to consider in

detail a patent license provided by Contour to a Swedish company

and now relied on by Chance. It is enough that what Contour 1

identified in the preliminary injunction phase of the case amply

supported the district court's decision to grant preliminary

relief--a decision that now appears to be vindicated by the jury's

verdict. Based on the then-existing record, the relief was

entirely proper.

It may be helpful to make clear for the benefit of future

controversies that the district court was free, and would remain

free even without this affirmance or leave from us, to enter a

permanent injunction based on the trial record while the original

appeal remained pending. True, once an appeal has been taken, a

district court ordinarily may not alter the judgment under review,

without leave of the appellate court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1; Puerto

In May 2009, Contour apparently settled a patent dispute with 1

the Swedish company and licensed it to make, or have made, Contour

mice of the type copied by Chance. Chance in turn began to supply

Chance's knock-offs to the Swedish company. Whatever protection

Chance might collaterally derive from the license (e.g. from a

patent infringement suit)--which we do not decide--nothing

indicates that it would free Chance from the NDA restrictions

invoked in this case.

-5-
Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 601 F.2d 39, 42 (1st Cir. 1979); cf.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) (contemplating limited exceptions).

However, in most respects and absent a stay, further

proceedings in the same controversy often may continue in the

district court while an appeal in an earlier phase is pending. See

Ex parte Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 201 U.S. 156, 162 (1906)

("The case, except for the hearing on the appeal from the

interlocutory order, is to proceed in the lower court as though no

such appeal had been taken, unless otherwise specially ordered."). 

To conduct a trial and grant or deny a permanent injunction based

on that trial is standard practice. See Ry. Labor Execs. Ass'n v.

City of Galveston, 898 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1990).

An appeal from the grant or denial of a

preliminary injunction does not divest the

trial court of jurisdiction or prevent it from

taking other steps in the litigation while the

appeal is pending. . . . The only restriction

on the trial court's power occurs if the

appellate court enters an order staying the

lower court until the appeal has been

completed.

11A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2962, at

438-39 (2d ed. 1995); accord Janousek v. Doyle, 313 F.2d 916, 920

(8th Cir. 1963).

As for appellate courts, there is no fixed rule as to

whether and when it makes sense to press ahead while the district

court acts. Sometimes, where the preliminary relief granted is

doubtful or resolving a pure issue of law may help with jury

-6-
instructions, a prompt appellate decision on the preliminary

injunction may be important; in other cases, sometimes not. Either

way, the district court is free to carry forward and order

permanent relief after the merits are resolved.

Affirmed.

-7-