Vidstream LLC v. Twitter, Inc.

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VIDSTREAM LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TWITTER, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2265
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas in No. 3:16-cv-00764-N, Judge
David C. Godbey.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before REYNA, L INN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
VidStream LLC appeals from the district court’s order
denying its motion for a preliminary injunction for failing
to establish irreparable injury. Twitter, Inc. moves for
summary affirmance. VidStream opposes.
Case: 24-2265 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

VIDSTREAM LLC v. TWITTER, INC. 2
VidStream’s challenge hinges on its argument that
“the district court here simply had no discretion to require
additional harm beyond ongoing infringement VidStream
established.” Opening Br. (ECF No. 11) at 20; see also id.
at 2 (“According to the principles administered by the
Court of Chancery at the founding, the likelihood of ongo-
ing infringement itself constituted irreparable injury.”); id.
at 8 (“According to these principles, the likelihood of ongo-
ing infringement itself is irreparable injury.”).
VidStream’s argument clearly runs afoul of the Su-
preme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange,
L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393 (2006), which rejected such a
“broad” and “categorical rule” in deciding motions for in-
junctive relief in the context of patent infringement. See
Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1149
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (confirming “that eBay jettisoned the pre-
sumption of irreparable harm” and “abolishe[d] our general
rule that an injunction normally will issue when a patent
is found to have been valid and infringed”).
Given that VidStream’s only challenge in its opening
brief raises no substantial question regarding the outcome
of the appeal under governing Supreme Court precedent,
the court affirms, and finds it appropriate to do so by sum-
mary order. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[S]ummary disposition is appropriate, in-
ter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct
as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding
the outcome of the appeal exists.”).1
1 VidStream’s opposition to the motion appears to al-
lege irreparable harm from Twitter’s litigation conduct.
Such argument was not raised in VidStream’s opening
brief, and those arguments are waived. See SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.
Case: 24-2265 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

VIDSTREAM LLC v. TWITTER, INC. 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The order denying a pre-
liminary injunction is summarily affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
November 19, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established that arguments not
raised in the opening brief are waived.”).
Case: 24-2265 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 11/19/2024

-- 3 of 3 --