Clearplay, Inc. v. Nissim Corp., et al.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 7, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-13469
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:07-cv-81170-PCH
CLEARPLAY, INC.,
a Utah Corporation,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Counter -
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee,
versus
NISSIM CORP.,
a Florida Corporation,
llllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Counter -
llllllllllllllllllll Claimant - Appellant,
MAX ABECASSIS,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 7, 2011)

-- 1 of 3 --

Before BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Nissim Corp. and its President Max Abecassis (collectively “Nissim”)
appeal from the district court’s order granting ClearPlay Inc. (“ClearPlay”) a
preliminary injunction in ClearPlay’s state law action against Nissim. The
preliminary injunction precluded Nissim from stating or suggesting to ClearPlay’s
business associates that an order entered by the court in a parallel patent-
infringement lawsuit effectively terminated a license agreement between the two
parties, which authorized ClearPlay to make and sell DVD-filtering technology.
We find it unnecessary to relate the tortured legal history of the litigation
between the parties, as the only issue before us in this appeal is whether the
district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. See1
Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1178 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “A district
court may grant injunctive relief only if the moving party shows that: (1) it has a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be
suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant
Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of*
Louisiana, sitting by designation.
We reject Nissim’s initial argument that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which1
was transferred to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing
party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.”
Id. at 1176.
We have carefully reviewed the district court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and cannot say that Nissim has shown that the district court
abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --