NOSSK, Inc. v. Fitness Anywhere LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-08914
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In NOSSK v. Fitness Anywhere, Judge Freeman denied NOSSK’s temporary restraining order request for lack of shown irreparable harm and set its preliminary-injunction motion for expedited briefing.
NOSSK’s request for immediate emergency relief was denied, while its separate preliminary-injunction motion remained scheduled for expedited briefing. Fitness Anywhere was not required by this order to retract its Amazon grievances.
What happened
In NOSSK, Inc. v. Fitness Anywhere LLC, NOSSK asked for an emergency order requiring Fitness Anywhere LLC, doing business as TRX, to notify Amazon and retract patent-infringement complaints involving four products.
The court denied the temporary restraining order request. It found that lost sales, customers, and business opportunities were financial harms, while other claimed injuries were not shown to be imminent or supported by evidence beyond the chief executive officer’s declaration. The court also noted that NOSSK waited more than four months after its products were removed from Amazon’s marketplace before seeking emergency relief.
Judge Freeman set NOSSK’s separate preliminary-injunction motion for expedited briefing and established deadlines for additional evidence, opposition, and reply. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying patent dispute.
The detailed version
- NOSSK, Inc. v. Fitness Anywhere LLC · No. 5:21-cv-08914
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 22, 2021
Background
NOSSK, Inc. filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and an order requiring Fitness Anywhere LLC, doing business as TRX, to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue. NOSSK sought an order requiring Fitness Anywhere to submit notice to Amazon.com, Inc. retracting prior patent-infringement grievances concerning four NOSSK products.
NOSSK argued that it had suffered more than $100,000 in lost sales, reduced overall sales, lower product placement and consumer views on Amazon, and potential harm to its reputation, advertising efforts, customer base, ranking, reviews, repeat-offender status, and goodwill. It also asserted that it might default on its real-estate business, lose the ability to take advantage of earlier business contracts, and have its Amazon account deactivated.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction generally require the applicant to show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. The court focused on irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies, finding it unnecessary to consider the other factors because NOSSK had not shown immediate irreparable harm.
The court concluded that claimed losses from lost profits, customers, and business opportunities were financial and therefore did not establish irreparable harm. It also found that NOSSK’s alleged non-economic injuries—including potential real-estate default, lost goodwill, and possible account deactivation—were not supported by the record. NOSSK had not explained whether or how those injuries were imminent, and it submitted no outside evidence of them beyond its chief executive officer’s declaration.
The court further found that NOSSK’s delay undermined its claim of immediate harm. NOSSK had been notified on July 17, 2021, that its products were being removed from Amazon’s marketplace because they had been flagged for patent infringement. Negotiations with Fitness Anywhere had failed in September, but NOSSK did not seek a temporary restraining order until November 19, 2021. The court noted that NOSSK provided no explanation for that delay or for the claimed emergency.
Ruling and Next Steps
Judge Freeman denied NOSSK’s application for a temporary restraining order because NOSSK had not established irreparable harm or the inadequacy of legal remedies. The court separately set NOSSK’s motion for a preliminary injunction on an expedited schedule. NOSSK was required to file and serve additional briefing or evidence by November 29, 2021; Fitness Anywhere’s opposition was due December 9, 2021; and NOSSK’s reply was due December 13, 2021. The order did not resolve the underlying patent-infringement dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.