Opinion ID: 210113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Ultimate Balance

Text: The ultimate decision in a preliminary injunction context requires a flexible balancing of the parties' respective showings of potential irreparable harm and the movant's likelihood of success on the merits. If, after balancing [the irreparable harm to plaintiff against that of the defendant], the balance tips decidedly in favor of the plaintiff, a preliminary injunction will be granted if the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation. Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 813 (4th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). A request for a preliminary injunction is evaluated in accordance with a 2006-1615 8 'sliding scale' approach: the more the balance of irreparable harm inclines in the plaintiff's favor, the smaller the likelihood of prevailing on the merits he need show in order to get the injunction. Kowalski v. Chicago Tribune Co., 854 F.2d 168, 170 (7th Cir. 1988). In the instant case, the district court reasonably evaluated Canon's likely success on the merits and the irreparable harm balance and did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.