Baker Hughes Gets PI Against Nalco…Again

Posted on | January 24, 2010 | No Comments

2010-1124 Baker Hughes v. Nalco
SD/TX H-09-1885
Judge Kenneth Hoyt

Nalco appeals from the grant of a preliminary injunction by Judge Kenneth Hoyt against it from infringing 7,497,943, generally directed to a method of removing or transferring metals and/or amines from crude oil.  This is the second PI granted in the case: the first was vacated by the Federal Circuit in September because the first order was not sufficiently supported, particularly on the issue of irreparable harm.

The key issue appears to be irreparable harm, which Judge Hoyt concluding that allowing Nalco to continue its refining process would be "potentially" irreparable and difficult to quantify.  (Opinion, p. 9.) 

First, the court noted that this was a two-competitor market (Baker Hughes and Nalco) and "[t]he fact that there is direct competition in a mark[et]place weighs heavily in favor of a finding of irreparable injury.”

Second, because there were only a few potential customers:

the Court finds that, absent an injunction, Baker Hughes will suffer irreparable harm through damage to its reputation in the pertinent market. Specifically, Baker Hughes presented evidence that, within this market, a company is unlikely to be able to resume elevated pricing of patented goods (after discounted sales by other parties) without suffering harm to its good name and ability to conduct business.³ Further, this damage to Baker Hughes’ business reputation could harm its ability to engage in the sale of functionally related products. These damages are (potentially) both irreparable and difficult to quantify. Such conclusions support a finding of irreparable harm.

The court doesn't describe any of the supporting evidence or go into any more detail–and, frankly, it sounds like the argument made by every patentee in every PI case–but it was apparently good enough here.

The court also finds the rest of the PI factors met.

2010-1124 PI Order

Comments