Nutrition 21 v. The United States of America v. Thorne Research, Inc., Albert F. Czap

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a seven-month delay in bringing suit “at least suggests that the status quo” does not cause irreparable harm
• “[W]ithout a clear showing of validity and infringement, a presumption of irreparable harm does not arise in a preliminary injunction proceeding.”
• no finding of irreparable harm because alleged infringer is a financially responsible company answerable in damages
• “Sufficient factual findings on the material issues are necessary to allow this court to have a basis for mean- ingful review.”
• “An expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion is neither required nor indeed ‘evidence’ at all.”
• “[N]either the difficulty of calculating losses in market share, nor speculation that such losses might occur, amount to proof of special circumstances justifying the extraordinary relief of injunction prior to trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).