Opinion ID: 73870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Modification

Text: 7 In any event, this Court in Epic Metals I upheld the prior award of both statutory damages and injunctive relief, and we are bound by that prior panel's ruling. See Burger King Corp. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 15 F.3d 166, 169 (11th Cir.1994) (under law of the case doctrine, findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial or on a later appeal. (citations omitted)). Finally, Condec argues that even if injunctive relief is appropriate, the trial court abused its discretion in that it fashioned an injunction that is overbroad, because it (1) reaches beyond the parties of the litigation by requiring UL to withdraw its certification of CONDEC and (2) goes beyond remedying the actual infringement by regulating the fruit of the infringing tree. We reject both arguments. The injunction does not place any restrictions on UL or any other non-party; it merely regulates Condec's infringing actions.8 Condec argues for the first time in its reply brief that the injunction as modified impermissibly regulates the fruit of the infringing tree, or the benefits generated by the original infringement. See 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.06[C]. This court does not address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. Hall v. Coram Healthcare Corp., 157 F.3d 1286, 1290 (11th Cir.1998).