Court Opinion

ID: 9928325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 16:02:55.162089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:55.674385
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1058   Document: 63     Page: 1    Filed: 01/31/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

            SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

   GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC, GOGO INC.,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

                       2023-1058
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:22-cv-00266-GBW, Judge
 Gregory Brian Williams.
                 ______________________

                Decided: January 31, 2024
                 ______________________

     RYAN M. CORBETT, Burr & Forman LLP, Tampa, FL,
 argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by LANCE
 A. LAWSON, Charlotte, NC; JACK B. BLUMENFELD, RODGER
 D. SMITH, II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wil-
 mington, DE.

    NATHANIEL C. LOVE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL,
 argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by
 STEPHANIE P. KOH.
                ______________________
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 2    Filed: 01/31/2024

 2   SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 Before CHEN, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
      SmartSky Networks, LLC (“SmartSky”) appeals from
 the decision of the United States District Court for the Dis-
 trict of Delaware denying SmartSky’s motion for prelimi-
 nary injunction filed against Gogo Business Aviation, LLC
 and Gogo Inc. (collectively, “Gogo”). J.A. 2–21 (Decision).
 The district court found that SmartSky failed to meet its
 burden to establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits
 and that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if a prelimi-
 nary injunction is not granted. J.A. 13, 16–18, 21. Because
 the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
 SmartSky failed to meet its burden of establishing irrepa-
 rable harm, we affirm.
                        I. BACKGROUND
      Gogo and SmartSky are competitors as business avia-
 tion network providers, both offering air-to-ground (“ATG”)
 networks that provide broadband in-flight internet connec-
 tions to aircrafts. J.A. 21; Appellant’s Br. 4–7; Appellee’s
 Br. 5–7. On February 28, 2022, SmartSky sued Gogo, al-
 leging that Gogo’s 5G network infringes claims of Smart-
 Sky’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,312,947, 11,223,417, 10,257,717,
 and 9,730,077 (collectively, the “asserted patents”). J.A. 3;
 J.A. 103. The asserted patents relate to technology that
 enables wireless in-flight internet connections. See ’947
 patent; ’417 patent; ’717 patent; ’077 patent. At the time
 of the latest filings with this court, Gogo’s 5G network was
 not yet operational. Oral Arg. at 13:53–14:08, available at
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=
 23-1058_06052023.mp3; ECF No. 59 at 5 (Gogo’s Opposi-
 tion to SmartSky’s Motion for Leave to Supplement the
 Record on Appeal).
     On the same day as filing the complaint, SmartSky
 moved to preliminary enjoin Gogo from making, using, of-
 fering to sell, or selling its 5G network. J.A. 3. SmartSky
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 3    Filed: 01/31/2024

 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC        3

 contended that it was likely to successfully prove that
 Gogo’s 5G network infringes claims 1 and 11 of the ’947 pa-
 tent, claims 1 and 11 of the ’417 patent, claims 1 and 12 of
 the ’717 patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the ’077 patent, and
 that these claims are not likely to be found invalid. J.A.
 162–65. SmartSky further asserted that it was likely to
 suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.
 J.A. 166. On September 26, 2022, the district court denied
 SmartSky’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding
 SmartSky had not established a likelihood of success on the
 merits for any of the asserted patents and had not shown
 that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm. J.A. 2–21.
     SmartSky timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
 der 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1).
                   II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
      We review a denial of a preliminary injunction accord-
 ing to the law of the regional circuit—here, the Third Cir-
 cuit—but “give[] dominant effect to Federal Circuit
 precedent insofar as it reflects considerations specific to pa-
 tent issues.” Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Sarepta Therapeu-
 tics, Inc., 25 F.4th 998, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation
 omitted). Under both Federal Circuit and Third Circuit
 law, we review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an
 abuse of discretion. Id. (citations omitted); see Kos
 Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir.
 2004) (citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion may be
 established by showing that the court made a clear error of
 judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its dis-
 cretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous fac-
 tual findings.” Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS
 USA LLC, 39 F.4th 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting
 Novo Nordisk of N. Am., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 77 F.3d
 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see Kos Pharms., 379 F.3d at
 708.
     “To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must es-
 tablish that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it is
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 4     Filed: 01/31/2024

 4   SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelimi-
 nary relief, that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and
 that an injunction is in the public interest.” Koninklijke,
 39 F.4th at 1379–80 (cleaned up) (citation omitted); see Kos
 Pharms., 369 F.3d at 708 (citation omitted).
                        III. DISCUSSION
                               A.
      Before addressing SmartSky’s arguments on the mer-
 its, we first address SmartSky’s two motions for leave to
 supplement the record with certain materials not reviewed
 by the district court. ECF No. 33 (Motion to Supplement)
 at 3; ECF No. 58 (Second Motion to Supplement) at 3; see
 Appellant’s Reply Br. 23, 25–27, 31 (citing extra-record ma-
 terials). The materials subject to the motion to supplement
 include: (1) Gogo’s Annual Report for 2022 (Form 10-K);
 (2) Gogo’s 2022 Fourth Quarter Report and 2023 Q3 Report
 (Forms 8-K); (3) Gogo’s 2023 Third Quarter Report (Form
 10-Q); (4) the transcripts of Gogo’s 2022 Q4 Earnings Call
 and Gogo’s 2023 Q3 Earnings call; (5) publicly available
 statements made by Gogo’s CEO during a podcast inter-
 view; and (6) a publicly-available press release issued by
 Gogo on October 17, 2023. ECF No. 33 at 3; ECF No. 58 at
 3. SmartSky requests this court to grant the motion to sup-
 plement, or alternatively, take judicial notice of the extra-
 record, publicly available materials, arguing that these
 documents would establish certain facts about Gogo’s al-
 legedly infringing equipment relevant to irreparable harm
 and would directly contradict Gogo’s arguments. See, e.g.,
 ECF No. 33 at 3, 7, 10; ECF No. 58 at 3, 7, 8, 10–12.
     We deny SmartSky’s motions to supplement. We “will
 not consider new evidence on appeal absent extraordinary
 circumstances, such as those that render the case moot or
 alter the appropriateness of injunctive relief, a change in
 pertinent law, or facts of which a court may take judicial
 notice.” In re Application of Adan, 437 F.3d 381, 388 n.3
 (3d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Golan v.
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 5    Filed: 01/31/2024

 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC        5

 Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880 (2022). We likewise strike the rel-
 evant portions of SmartSky’s reply brief citing these extra-
 record materials. Appellant’s Reply Br. 23, 25–27, 31. See
 Am. Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 828 F.2d 734, 746 (Fed.
 Cir. 1987) (striking references to material not considered
 by the district court and not properly supplemented).
      SmartSky asserts that the extra-record documents are
 relevant to establishing market share, sales, and switching
 costs from one provider to another. ECF No. 33 at 13–14,
 20; ECF No. 58 at 4–5, 11–12. But the district court found
 no likelihood of irreparable harm despite finding that
 SmartSky established consumer “stickiness” and that Gogo
 and SmartSky “compete[] directly.” J.A. 21. Any extra-rec-
 ord materials directed to these facts would not “alter the
 appropriateness of injunctive relief.” In re Adan, 437 F.3d
 at 388 n.3. SmartSky also does not argue that there is a
 change in pertinent law or a mooting event that would jus-
 tify SmartSky’s motion to supplement. See id.
      We also decline to take judicial notice of SmartSky’s
 extra-record materials. Judicial notice exists to take notice
 of “fact[s] that [are] not subject to reasonable dispute,” Fed.
 R. Evid. 201(b). Here, parties reasonably dispute the accu-
 racy and relevance of the facts SmartSky seeks to establish
 from these extra-record materials. Compare ECF No. 33 at
 7 (arguing that Gogo’s alleged facts presented to the dis-
 trict court and this court are at odds with the information
 in the extra-record materials), and ECF No. 58 at 12–13
 (arguing that the extra-record materials contradict the dis-
 trict court’s finding of no imminent lost sales), with ECF
 No. 35 at 9–11 (responding that Gogo’s arguments do not
 contradict the supplemental materials), and ECF No. 59 at
 5–6 (responding that the extra-record materials do not con-
 tradict the district court’s findings). Because the “proper
 function of a court of appeals is to review the decision below
 on the basis of the record that was before the district court,”
 under these specific circumstances, we decline to take judi-
 cial notice of the materials subject to the motions to
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 6    Filed: 01/31/2024

 6   SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 supplement. Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 344 n.5
 (3d Cir. 2006), as amended (Sept. 13, 2006) (internal quo-
 tation marks omitted) (quoting Fassett v. Delta Kappa Ep-
 silon (New York), 807 F.2d 1150, 1165 (3d Cir. 1986)).
                               B.
      SmartSky argues the district court erred by: (1) find-
 ing no likelihood of success on the merits, Appellant’s Br.
 28, 31, 37, 42; and (2) holding that SmartSky failed to es-
 tablish a likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. at 42. Because
 we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
 in finding SmartSky failed to establish a likelihood of ir-
 reparable harm, we affirm the district court’s denial of a
 preliminary injunction. Because we find no reversible er-
 ror as to the district court’s findings as to irreparable harm,
 we do not need to also address SmartSky’s arguments re-
 lated to likelihood of success. See Roper Corp. v. Litton
 Sys., Inc., 757 F.2d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (affirming
 denial of preliminary injunction without addressing likeli-
 hood of success with respect to infringement because mo-
 vant “clearly failed to meet the criterion of showing
 irreparable injury”).
     SmartSky has the burden of establishing that it is
 likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary in-
 junction and that there is a causal nexus between the al-
 leged infringement and the alleged harm. Metalcraft of
 Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
 2017) (citing Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d
 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Apple I”)). Where no amount
 of monetary damages could address the harm, the harm is
 likely irreparable. Id. (citing Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v.
 CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). On
 the other hand, “[t]he mere possibility or speculation of
 harm is insufficient.” Koninklijke, 39 F.4th at 1380 (cita-
 tion omitted). Price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to
 reputation, and loss of business opportunities are examples
Case: 23-1058    Document: 63      Page: 7    Filed: 01/31/2024

 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC      7

 of possible grounds for finding irreparable harm. Celsis,
 664 F.3d at 930.
     SmartSky contends that the district court erred by
 finding that it did not establish a likelihood of irreparable
 harm from (1) lost sales and lost market share, (2) price
 erosion, (3) lost reputation and goodwill, and (4) lost re-
 search and development (“R&D”) and investments. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 49, 55, 57, 58. SmartSky also argues that this
 case includes “hallmark examples of irreparable harm” and
 the district court abused its discretion by ignoring such
 hallmarks. Id. at 42–43, 51. We address each argument in
 turn.
                              i.
     SmartSky asserts that the district court erred in find-
 ing no irreparable harm and that SmartSky had not
 demonstrated that lost sales and lost market share were
 “imminent as a result of Gogo’s yet-to-be-released 5G Net-
 work or that its losses are non-compensable.” Appellant’s
 Br. 49 (quoting J.A. 21). Regarding lost sales, SmartSky
 argues that the district court erred in finding that Gogo’s
 accused 5G network was “yet-to-be released” when Gogo
 has made sales on its accused 5G network since at least
 October 2021. Id. at 50. SmartSky also contends that the
 district court ignored Gogo’s sales of AVANCE L5 equip-
 ment. Id. Additionally, SmartSky argues that the district
 court’s irreparable harm findings were inconsistent with
 finding SmartSky and Gogo to be “direct competitors” and
 finding Gogo’s consumers to be “sticky.” Id. at 46–47, 48–
 49. Lastly, SmartSky contends that the district court erred
 in disregarding Gogo’s market advantage based on first-
 mover advantage and monopoly position and failing to
 credit SmartSky’s expert testimony that the lost sales and
 market share were unquantifiable. Id. at 52–54.
     We find SmartSky’s lost sales arguments unpersuasive
 as to Gogo’s 5G network. SmartSky itself concedes that
 Gogo’s 5G network has not been released. Oral Arg. at
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 8     Filed: 01/31/2024

 8   SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 13:53–14:08. SmartSky also does not dispute that Gogo
 has not launched its 5G network even in one of its most
 recent filings with the court. ECF No. 60 at 3. Even ac-
 cepting SmartSky’s argument that the district court should
 have relied on evidence that Gogo’s accused 5G network
 has been offered for sale since October 2021, Appellant’s
 Br. 50, the district court did not abuse its discretion in find-
 ing that any lost sales and service revenue through the
 date of trial is quantifiable because SmartSky’s own expert
 conceded to this conclusion. J.A. 19, 21; J.A. 6922–23. See
 Abbott Lab’ys v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1348
 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding potential lost sales alone did not
 demonstrate manifest irreparable harm). We are further
 unpersuaded that the district court erred in not crediting
 SmartSky’s expert testimony that certain damages are un-
 quantifiable after trial. Appellant’s Br. 54–55. Consider-
 ing SmartSky’s concession and its expert’s own admission,
 we disagree that the district court abused its discretion in
 finding no likelihood of irreparable harm.
      As for any lost sales from AVANCE L5, SmartSky
 failed to raise this argument in its opening brief at the dis-
 trict court. Op. Prelim. Inj. Br. 12–18, SmartSky Networks,
 LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00266 (D.
 Del. Mar. 22, 2022), D.I. 24. SmartSky thus failed to pre-
 serve this argument for appeal by “rais[ing] [it] for the first
 time before a district court in a reply brief.” In re Niaspan
 Antitrust Litig., 67 F.4th 118, 135 (3d Cir. 2023); see
 Novosteel SA v. United States, 284 F.3d 1261, 1273 (Fed.
 Cir. 2002) (deeming issue not preserved for review because
 it was not raised in a principal brief at the Court of Inter-
 national Trade). But even if we were to consider Smart-
 Sky’s argument, we are not persuaded. As SmartSky
 concedes, AVANCE L5 is currently sold as part of Gogo’s
 unaccused 4G network. Oral Arg. at 29:45–53. The fact
 that AVANCE L5 is also a “necessary component” of the
 allegedly infringing 5G network is immaterial, id. at
 12:50–13:01, because a customer must choose to upgrade
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 9     Filed: 01/31/2024

 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC         9

 its AVANCE L5 before it can be used with Gogo’s 5G net-
 work. J.A. 1368, 1384; J.A. 4766; J.A. 9594. Here, the al-
 leged harm will only occur if Gogo launches its 5G network
 and if customers of AVANCE L5 choose to upgrade. “This
 type of speculative harm does not justify the rare and ex-
 traordinary relief of a preliminary injunction.” Kon-
 inklijke, 39 F.4th at 1380.
     SmartSky further contends that the district court cor-
 rectly acknowledged that the parties are in direct competi-
 tion and that there is consumer stickiness in the market,
 but still erred by finding that SmartSky was not likely to
 show irreparable harm. J.A. 21; Appellant’s Br. 46–49. We
 disagree. SmartSky has not pointed us to any additional
 evidence in the record that suggests that any consumers
 who chose Gogo’s 5G network would have chosen Smart-
 Sky’s product rather than, for example, Gogo’s unaccused
 4G product or a non-infringing product offered by another
 provider of in-flight connectivity service. Furthermore, alt-
 hough “the existence of a two-player market may . . . cre-
 ate[] an inference that an infringing sale amounts to a lost
 sale for the patentee,” Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg.
 Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2011), SmartSky’s ar-
 gument fails because the district court never made a find-
 ing that SmartSky and Gogo are the only two competitors
 in the relevant market. Rather, the district court merely
 found SmartSky and Gogo “compete[] directly” as “business
 aviation network provider[s].” J.A. 21. The record sug-
 gests that the market for business aviation network pro-
 viders may contain many more players than SmartSky and
 Gogo, including providers that use non-ATG technologies
 to provide in-flight connectivity services. J.A. 7566. There-
 fore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
 that SmartSky’s alleged losses were not sufficiently immi-
 nent or non-compensable based on Gogo’s yet-to-be-re-
 leased 5G network.
    Nor are we persuaded by SmartSky’s citation of cases
 where the court found irreparable harm based on the
Case: 23-1058    Document: 63       Page: 10   Filed: 01/31/2024

 10 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 alleged infringer’s market positions. Appellant’s Br. 52–53
 (citing cases). In these cases, the causal connections be-
 tween the alleged infringer’s market position and the al-
 leged infringement were more pronounced. For example,
 in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., the
 court identified testimony that the alleged infringer left the
 patentee to start the company that made the accused prod-
 uct, leading to the alleged infringer’s “first mover ad-
 vantage.” 967 F.3d 1353, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In
 Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., the “incumbency effect”
 arose from the “design wins” market—not present here—
 where a manufacturer “essentially commits itself to a sin-
 gle supplier until the next design cycle,” leading to a mar-
 ket where the alleged infringer could obtain serious
 dominance. 732 F.3d 1325, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Like-
 wise, in M-I LLC v. FPUSA, LLC, a non-precedential case,
 the parties were in a two-player market, which the district
 court has not found here. 626 F. App’x 995, 998–99 (Fed.
 Cir. 2015); J.A. 21. SmartSky has not presented evidence
 that circumstances similar to these cases exist here. Ac-
 cordingly, these cases are inapposite.
     For the reasons above, we conclude the district court
 did not abuse its discretion in rejecting SmartSky’s argu-
 ment that its alleged lost sales and lost market share
 amounted to irreparable harm.
                              ii.
     SmartSky also argues that the district court erred in
 deeming its price erosion theory of irreparable harm spec-
 ulative by ignoring testimony from SmartSky’s president
 alleging that customers used Gogo’s pricing to negotiate
 price reductions from SmartSky. Appellant’s Br. 55–56.
      We find this argument unpersuasive. In previous
 cases, we have required concrete evidence of reduced price
 to find price erosion. For example, in Sanofi-Synthelabo v.
 Apotex, Inc., we found no abuse of discretion in finding that
 the patentee would suffer price erosion due to a complex
Case: 23-1058    Document: 63        Page: 11   Filed: 01/31/2024

 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC      11

 price scheme affected by the entry of a generic product to
 the market. 470 F.3d 1368, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In Robert
 Bosch, we explained, among other things, that the patentee
 “offered a new, cheaper [product] in an attempt to compete
 with [the alleged infringer]’s lower prices” in holding the
 district court erred in its finding of no irreparable harm.
 659 F.3d at 1153–54. Such concrete evidence is not present
 in the testimony of SmartSky’s president. The cited testi-
 mony shows that a few potential customers requested a
 price decrease in light of Gogo’s 4G network pricing, not
 that SmartSky lowered its price because of the launch of
 Gogo’s 5G network. J.A. 9594, 9597–99, 9602–03. Further-
 more, SmartSky’s president conceded that SmartSky set
 its prices before Gogo announced the prices of its 5G net-
 work. J.A. 9591–93. Therefore, the district court did not
 abuse its discretion by rejecting SmartSky’s price erosion
 argument as speculative.
     SmartSky further argues that the district court ig-
 nored the testimony of SmartSky’s expert, Mr. Cook. Ap-
 pellant’s Reply Br. 29–30. We agree with the district court
 that Mr. Cook “offer[ed] no economic analysis, other than
 conclusory assertions, to support its price erosion theory.”
 J.A. 20; see J.A. 302–03 (expert report); J.A. 8125–27 (re-
 buttal expert report). We see no abuse of discretion in the
 district court’s rejection of this testimony. See Nichia Corp.
 v. Everlight Americas, Inc., 855 F.3d 1328, 1342–43 (Fed.
 Cir. 2017) (rejecting price erosion theory where the expert
 did not attempt a price-erosion analysis).
                              iii.
     SmartSky also argues that the district court erred in
 finding that SmartSky did not demonstrate irreparable
 harm to its reputation and goodwill. Appellant’s Br. 58–
 60. We disagree.
    SmartSky’s president attributed the alleged loss of con-
 sumer and investment interest in part to Gogo’s existing
 market power and to concerns about SmartSky’s own
Case: 23-1058    Document: 63       Page: 12   Filed: 01/31/2024

 12 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 product. J.A. 9617–19; J.A. 9569–71. On the other hand,
 as the district court noted, Gogo presented evidence that
 SmartSky continued to secure investments and customers
 even after Gogo announced its 5G network. J.A. 4762,
 4774; see also J.A. 21. Being able to secure customers and
 investors while facing a competing, allegedly infringing
 product “does not automatically rebut a case for irrepara-
 ble injury.” Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
 717 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013). But such evidence is
 still relevant. Thus, we decline to find the district court
 abused its discretion by rejecting SmartSky’s reputation
 and goodwill argument as speculative.
                              iv.
      SmartSky further contends that the district court erred
 in finding that SmartSky did not demonstrate irreparable
 harm based on past and future lost R&D and investments.
 Appellant’s Br. 57–58. Here too, we disagree.
     The district court found that “SmartSky’s assertion[]
 that it stands to lose . . . its ability to recoup its R&D in-
 vestments . . . is speculative,” J.A. 21, and we see no error
 in this analysis. As for future opportunities, as the district
 court explained, a claim of lost opportunity to conduct fu-
 ture research alone is insufficient to compel a finding of ir-
 reparable harm. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
 82 F.3d 1568, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996); J.A. 20–21.
     SmartSky instead challenges the district court’s deci-
 sion by analogizing this case to Douglas Dynamics and
 TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Systems International, Inc.
 Appellant’s Br. 57–58 (first citing 717 F.3d at 1344–45; and
 then citing 920 F.3d 777, 792 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). But neither
 case is analogous. In Douglas Dynamics, it was the pa-
 tentee’s reputation loss and role in creating the niche mar-
 ket as a result of its investments that led to our conclusion
 that remedies at law were inadequate, not the investments
 themselves. 717 F.3d at 1344–45. And TEK does not ad-
 dress past or future R&D and investment losses. 920 F.3d
Case: 23-1058    Document: 63       Page: 13   Filed: 01/31/2024

 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC      13

 at 792. Therefore, we reject SmartSky’s argument that the
 district court erred by not finding lost R&D and invest-
 ments to be irreparable.
                               v.
      SmartSky finally argues that the district court abused
 its discretion in finding that SmartSky did not show a like-
 lihood of irreparable harm, despite the existence of “hall-
 mark examples of irreparable harm,” including, for
 example, that SmartSky and Gogo are direct competitors,
 that the consumers are “sticky,” and that the competition
 from the allegedly infringing product concerns SmartSky’s
 flagship product and is “game-changing.” Appellant’s Br.
 42–45, 51–52. We are not persuaded.
      SmartSky relies on cases that are readily distinguish-
 able from the present case. See Appellant’s Br. 47–49, 51
 (citing cases); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 809
 F.3d 633, 643 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Apple II”) (noting that
 strength and weight of evidence is to be determined on a
 case-by-case basis). For example, in Douglas Dynamics,
 this court found that the district court erred in relying on
 evidence that the patentee and infringer targeted different
 consumers, while ignoring other evidence of irreparable
 harm including price erosion and lost market share. Id. at
 1344–45; see also Apple I, 735 F.3d at 1362 (distinguishing
 Douglas Dynamics for similar reasons). Here, the district
 court did not fail to properly address SmartSky’s evidence
 of price erosion and lost market share. Similarly, in Robert
 Bosch, this court held that the district court wrongly relied
 on the absence of a “two-player market,” “the non-core na-
 ture” of patentee’s impacted product, and the patentee’s
 “alleged failure to define a relevant market,” and failed to
 properly address evidence that the alleged infringer se-
 cured a former customer of the patentee in a market where
 a single customer accounts for a substantial portion of the
 entire customer base. 659 F.3d at 1152–54. Similar evi-
 dence of the loss of a few important customers is not
Case: 23-1058     Document: 63      Page: 14    Filed: 01/31/2024

 14 SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC v. GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC

 present in this case. Moreover, in Trebro Manufacturing
 Inc. v. Firefly Equipment LLC, the patentee presented “un-
 controverted testimony” that the “market at issue in this
 case is a tiny market with only three players,” and because
 only roughly eight units of products are sold per year, “a
 single lost sale is a sizeable percentage of the yearly mar-
 ket in this area” and is a loss that the patentee is “not likely
 to recover”—evidence that is again absent here. 748 F.3d
 1159, 1170–71 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Lastly, in Apple II, this
 court vacated the district court’s order denying an injunc-
 tion in part because of the district court’s erroneously nar-
 row nexus analysis as a basis for not finding irreparable
 harm. 809 F.3d at 640–41, 647. Considering the case-by-
 case analysis and the distinct factual circumstances here,
 we are not persuaded by SmartSky’s “hallmark examples”
 argument.
     In summary, we conclude that the district court did not
 abuse its discretion in finding that SmartSky has failed to
 satisfy its burden to establish a likelihood of irreparable
 harm.
                        IV. CONCLUSION
     We have considered SmartSky’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we affirm
 the district court’s denial of SmartSky’s motion for prelim-
 inary injunction.
                         AFFIRMED