Case Name: QUAD/TECH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS B.V. and Q.I. Press Controls North America Ltd., Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Print2Finish, LLC, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 413 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 2010-1354
Parties: QUAD/TECH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS B.V. and Q.I. Press Controls North America Ltd., Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Print2Finish, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BRYSON, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 413
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
QUAD/TECH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS B.V. and Q.I. Press Controls North America Ltd., Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Print2Finish, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2010-1354.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
March 21, 2011.
Charles W. Shifley, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was David R. Gerk, of Washington, DC.
David D. Langfitt, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for all defendants-appellees. With him on the brief for Q.I. Press Controls B.V., et al. was Robert R. Axenfeld.
Michael N. Onufrak, White and Williams, LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, for defendant-appellee Print2Finish, LLC. With him on the brief was Justin E. Proper.
Before BRYSON, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The district court denied a motion by appellant Quad/Teeh, Inc., for a preliminary injunction. The district court issued its order after finding that Quad/Teeh had failed to demonstrate either that it had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim or that it would be likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.
We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed.Cir.1997) (abuse of discretion may be established "by showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings"). Based on our review of the record before the district court in connection with the preliminary injunction motion, we uphold the district court's conclusion that, in light of the court's construction of one of the terms of the asserted claim, Quad/Teeh failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED.