On June 14, 2024, Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the Southern District of New York granted a motion for a preliminary injunction in a declaratory judgment action filed by accused infringer PowX Inc., which barred the sales of PowX’s foam roller products used for muscle massages. In doing so, the court considered whether patent owner Performance Solutions, LLC had shown “(1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the injunction's favorable impact on the public interest.”

Under the first factor, Judge Garnett found that Performance Solutions was reasonably likely to prove infringement given that PowX’s non-infringement arguments were foreclosed by the “plain, ordinary understanding” of the claim terms, lacked supporting “factual or expert witness testimony or analysis,” and were “not relevant to . . . whether the Accused Product infringes.” Similarly, the court found PowX’s invalidity arguments to be “insufficiently persuasive to prevail at this preliminary injunction stage.”

Under the second factor, Judge Garnett found that “Performance Solutions has shown it will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction” because the accused foam roller products were “undoubtedly in direct competition” with foam roller products licensed by Performance Solutions, which faced “imminent price erosion” and “further loss of market share” as a result of the infringement.

Finally, under the third and fourth factors, Judge Garnett found that the balance of the hardships favored an injunction because PowX failed “to put in any evidence” of how an injunction would negatively impact its business, and there was “a strong public interest in ensuring that valid patents are enforced.”

PowX Inc. v. Performance Solutions, LLC, No. 24-CV-01389 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y June 14, 2024)