3M Unitek Corp. v. Ormco Co.

Good Law
96 F. Supp. 2d 1042·2000 WL 524801·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9951
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 200099-10099-RAP(EX)California5,656 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paez, J.

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I.

Introduction

Plaintiffs 3M Unitek Corporation, 3M Innovative Properties Company and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (collectively “3M Unitek”) are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from continuing to sell its “inspire!” ceramic orthodontic brackets for use in orthodontic braces. Plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s bracket infringes on plaintiffs’ patents, United States Patents 5,366,372 (“372 patent”) and 5,439,379 (“379 patent”). Because the Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not grant the preliminary injunction, and that the balance of hardships tips in their favor, the Court concludes that plaintiffs’ motion should be granted.

II.

Discussion

A. Factual Background

Both of the parties, 3M Unitek and Ormco Corporation are major suppliers of orthodontic products. The plaintiffs introduced their patented ceramic bracket, “Clarity,” three years ago. The product is now the best selling ceramic bracket in the market. (Pi’s Mot. at 1.) In September of 1999, the defendant began shipping its…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.