Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd.

Background

The court had granted Sulzer Mixpac AG’s motion for a preliminary injunction on July 2, 2020. In discussing the preliminary relief, the court found that Sulzer Mixpac had a strong likelihood of success on its claim that Defendants breached the 2016 Settlement Agreement.

On July 24, 2024, the court granted Sulzer Mixpac’s motion for summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim but denied its request for a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction requires showings concerning irreparable injury, the adequacy of money damages, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. The court concluded that Sulzer Mixpac had not made the required showings concerning three of those factors.

Defendants’ Requests

DXM Co. Ltd. and Dentazon Corporation asked the court to clarify whether the summary-judgment order had implicitly vacated the preliminary injunction. They argued that denying permanent injunctive relief necessarily ended the preliminary injunction. They also argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney represented a significant change in the law requiring vacatur of the preliminary injunction. In the alternative, Defendants sought permission to file a motion to vacate or requested a pre-motion conference concerning such a motion.

Sulzer Mixpac opposed those requests and argued that the summary-judgment order did not vacate the preliminary injunction.

Court’s Clarification

The court clarified that the preliminary injunction applied to all claims in the case, even though the earlier order focused its discussion on the breach-of-contract claim. The court explained that when a plaintiff seeks preliminary relief based on multiple claims, it need only show a likelihood of success on one claim.

The court also rejected Defendants’ argument that denial of the permanent injunction automatically vacated the preliminary injunction. The court said the permanent injunction had been denied as premature and without prejudice because Sulzer Mixpac had not yet established all required factors. The denial was therefore not a final decision on whether Sulzer Mixpac was entitled to equitable relief.

The court noted that no damages hearing had yet occurred on the breach-of-contract claim and that Sulzer Mixpac’s unfair-competition claim had not yet been adjudicated. Those circumstances supported continuing the preliminary injunction.

Vacatur Requests

A preliminary injunction may be vacated or modified when there has been a significant change in the facts or law, or a material change in circumstances making continued enforcement unjustified or oppressive.

The court determined that Defendants had not identified a sufficient change. It explained that Starbucks addressed preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act and did not clearly change the law governing the injunction in this case. The court also held that the premature, without-prejudice denial of the permanent injunction did not establish a material change in circumstances warranting vacatur.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice Defendants’ request for leave to file a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and denied without prejudice their request for a pre-motion conference seeking such permission. The parties were directed to propose a discovery schedule concerning damages and the remaining claim. The clerk was directed to close docket entry 129.