Opinion ID: 210113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irreparable Harm Balance

Text: At the preliminary injunction stage, irreparable harm consists of harm that could not be sufficiently compensated by money damages or avoided by a later decision on the merits. DAN B. DOBBS, LAW OF REMEDIES 193-94 (2d ed. 1993). To reach an irreparable harm balance, a trial court compares the irreparable harm that would be sustained by the movant if a preliminary injunction were erroneously denied with the irreparable harm that would be sustained by the non-movant if a preliminary injunction were granted in error. Id. at 187. As the trial court found, competition from Defendants will likely result in substantial price erosion of Canon's patented product as well as loss of Canon's market share. Due to the difficulty (if not impossibility) of determining the damages resulting from price erosion and loss of market share, an award of money damages would not be sufficient. Moreover, Defendants' business operations are geographically far-flung, making the enforcement of a money judgment exceedingly difficult. Canon Inc. v. GCC Int'l, Ltd., 450 F. Supp. 2d 243, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Thus, to the extent that money damages against Defendants were awarded, there appears to be a reasonable 2006-1615 7 basis for the district court's finding that there would be little probability that Canon could effect the collection of a money judgment. On the other hand, as the district court found, there is little, if any, harm that would be suffered by Defendants by virtue of an erroneous grant of a preliminary injunction that could not be fully compensated by a money damage award against Canon under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). In light of Canon's demonstration of the potential of substantial irreparable harm, and Defendants' failure to make any such demonstration, this court agrees with the district court's conclusion that the irreparable harm balance favors Canon.