`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`2024-2265
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`VIDSTREAM LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court for The Northern District of Texas
`Case No. 3:16-cv-00764-N, Judge David C. Godbey
`
`OPENING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VIDSTREAM, LLC
`
`Austin Curry
` Counsel of Record
`Bradley W. Caldwell
`Jason D. Cassady
`John F. Summers
`Hamad M. Hamad
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY, PC
`2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 888-4848 (telephone)
`(214) 888-4849 (fax)
`
`
`
`Counsel for VidStream, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`March 2023
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`2024-2265
`VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
`Plaintiff-Appellant, VidStream LLC
`
`Instructions:
`
`1. Complete each section of the form and select none or N/A if appropriate.
`
`2. Please enter only one item per box; attach additional pages as needed, and
`check the box to indicate such pages are attached.
`
`3. In answering Sections 2 and 3, be specific as to which represented entities
`the answers apply; lack of specificity may result in non-compliance.
`
`4. Please do not duplicate entries within Section 5.
`
`5. Counsel must file an amended Certificate of Interest within seven days after
`any information on this form changes. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(c).
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`09/09/2024
`Date: _________________
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Austin Curry
`
`Name:
`
`Austin Curry
`
`

`

`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented by
`undersigned counsel
`in
`this case.
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`March 2023
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not list
`the real parties if they are
`the same as the entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations for
`the
`entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable (cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`
`✔
`
`VidStream LLC
`
`See attached page.
`
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`

`

`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`March 2023
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already entered
`an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`See attached page.
`
`✔
`
`5. Related Cases. Other than the originating case(s) for this case, are there
`related or prior cases that meet the criteria under Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(a)?
`(cid:1798) Yes (file separate notice; see below) (cid:1798) No (cid:1798) N/A (amicus/movant)
`If yes, concurrently file a separate Notice of Related Case Information that complies
`with Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Please do not duplicate information. This separate
`Notice must only be filed with the first Certificate of Interest or, subsequently, if
`information changes during the pendency of the appeal. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b).
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`

`

`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`FORM 9. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`
`Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 4)
`March 2023
`
`ADDENDUM TO CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`3. Parent Corporations and Stockholders. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of all parent corporations for the entities and all publicly
`held companies that own 10% or more stock in the entities.
`
` Covenant Global Alpha Fund, L.P.
`o Covenant Global Alpha Fund, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership
`whose general partner is MCFGA LLC. The members of MCFGA
`LLC are (1) CFMMMP LLC, (2) JFCFM LLC, (3) CFRBLP LLC,
`and (4) CFLP LLC.
` CFMMMP LLC is an Oklahoma LLC and is owned by Marsh
`Pitman, an Oklahoma resident.
` JFCFM LLC is an Oklahoma LLC and is owned by Joseph
`Watt, an Oklahoma resident.
` CFRBLP, LLC is an Oklahoma LLC and is owned by Robert
`Browne, an Oklahoma resident.
` CFLP LLC is an Oklahoma LLC and is owned by Ed Abel, an
`Oklahoma resident.
`o Covenant Global Alpha Fund, L.P. also has 74 private investors, who
`are limited partners.
` CGALTD Corporation
`o CGALTD Corporation is an Oklahoma corporation owned by
`Covenant Global Alpha Fund, Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted
`company. Covenant Global Alpha Fund, Ltd. has 74 private investors.
` GSSK Inc.
`o GSSK Inc. is a Texas corporation. Ryland Reed, a Texas resident,
`owns 50% of GSSK Inc., and Kerry Reed, a Texas resident, owns
`50% of GSSK Inc.
` Beth Harwell, a Texas resident
` AspenTech LLC
`o AspenTech LLC is a Texas LLC. Reed Williams, a Texas resident,
`owns 50% of AspenTech LLC, and Russell Lambert, a Texas resident,
`owns 50% of AspenTech LLC.
` J. Reed Williams LLC
`
`VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
`CAFC No. 2024-2265
`
`

`

`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 6 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`FORM 9. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`
`Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 5)
`March 2023
`
`o J. Reed Williams LLC is a Texas LLC owned by Reed Williams, a
`Texas resident.
` Reed Williams, a Texas resident
` Russell Lambert, a Texas resident
` Decker Holdings Ltd.
`o Decker Holdings Ltd. is a Texas Partnership owned by W&B Trust.
` The beneficiaries of the W&B Trust are Wade and Becky
`Decker, Texas residents.
` Reynolds Green LLC
`o Reynolds Green LLC is a Texas LLC. It is co-owned by Matt
`Musselman and Will Musselman, both Texas residents.
` Beckham Group PLLC
`o Beckham Group PLLC is a Texas PLLC owned by Blake Beckham, a
`Texas resident.
` Blake Becham, a Texas resident
` Sudon Carlop Holdings Ltd.
`o Sudon Carlop Holdings Ltd. is a Cayman Islands company. It is
`owned by the Rovrig Trust.
` The beneficiaries of the Rovrig Trust are Errol and Suzzanne
`Pullen, residents of the Cayman Islands.
` Warren Low, an Oklahoma resident
` Brian E. King Custodial IRA
`o The beneficiary of the Brian E. King Custodial IRA is Brian E. King,
`a Texas resident.
` K&NI LLC
`o K&NI LLC is a Texas LLC. Karl Buckman, a Texas resident, owns
`50% of K&NI LLC, and Nelda Sue Buckman, a Texas resident, owns
`50% of K&NI LLC.
` Voice Team USA LLC
`o Voice Team USA LLC is a Florida LLC owned by Sean Gruwell, a
`Florida resident.
` Joshua Lambert, a Texas resident
` James Lambert, a Texas resident
` Sarah Morrison, a Texas resident
` Beth Wieser, a Texas resident
`
`VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
`CAFC No. 2024-2265
`
`

`

`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 7 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`FORM 9. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`
`Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 6)
`March 2023
`
` April Lambert, a Texas resident
` Nichols Security Trust
`o Nichols Security Trust is a Texas trust. Its beneficiary is Rex Nichols,
`a Kentucky resident.
`
`4. List of Legal Representatives. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)appeared for the entities in the
`originating court or agency or (b) are expected to appear in this court for the
`entities. Do not include those who have already entered an appearance in this
`court.
`
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY PC:
`Adrienne R. Dellinger
`Brian D. Johnston
`Daniel R. Pearson
`R. Seth Reich, Jr.
`Warren J. McCarty, III
`
`BRUSTER PLLC
`Andrew Joseph Wright (former)
`
`CARRINGTON COLEMAN SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL LLP:
`Kenneth E. Carroll (former)
`Mark C. Howland (former)
`Seth A. Horwitz (former)
`Stephen L. Levine (former)
`
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC:
`Brent N. Bumgardner (former)
`Christopher Granaghan (former)
`
`VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
`CAFC No. 2024-2265
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 8 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUESTION PRESENTED .................................................................................. 3
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................... 3
`IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 7
`V. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 7
`A. Unless Congress Directs Otherwise, Federal Courts Must Exercise
`Their Powers in Equity as Would the English Court of Chancery
`circa 1789. .................................................................................................... 9
`B. Under the Applicable Chancery Standard, VidStream Established
`Irreparable Harm. ....................................................................................... 11
`1. Equitable Jurisdiction Was Permitted in All Chancery Patent-
`Infringement Cases Seeking Injunctive Relief Because It Was
`Well Established That Legal Remedies Were Inadequate in
`Such Cases. .......................................................................................... 11
`2. The English Chancery Uniformly Considered Likelihood of
`Ongoing Infringement to Be Irreparably Injurious. ............................ 15
`3. Because Ongoing Infringement Itself Is Irreparable Injury,
`English Chancery Regularly Granted Preliminary Injunctions In
`Patent Cases. ........................................................................................ 18
`4. VidStream Established the Likelihood of Ongoing Infringement. ..... 19
`5. Under Chancery Practice, a Court Does Not Have Discretion to
`Deny an Injunction on Irreparable Harm Grounds In a Case
`Involving Ongoing Infringement. ....................................................... 20
`C. Like Eighteenth-Century Chancery, Ongoing Patent Infringement Is
`Irreparable Injury Under Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Supreme
`Court Precedent. ......................................................................................... 21
`D. Policy Concerns Cannot Change the Traditional Principles of Equity
`and Their Method of Analyzing Irreparable Harm. ................................... 24
`1. The Traditional Irreparable-Harm Analysis Does Not Lead to
`Automatic Injunctions. ........................................................................ 25
`2. Considering Infringement Alone to Be Irreparable Harm Does Not
`Lead to Undue Patentee Bargaining Power. ....................................... 26
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 9 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`3. Returning Irreparable-Harm Analysis to Its Traditional Moorings
`Consistent with Chancery Practice Furthers This Country’s
`Established Policy of Nondiscrimination Against Patentees. ............. 28
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 10 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.
` 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 24
`
`Amoco Prods. Co. v. Vill. Of Gambell, AK
` 480 U.S. 513 (1987) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Inc.
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 23
`
`Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. Southern, Inc.
` 306 U.S. 563 (1939) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Bond v. Hopkins
` 1 Sch. & Lef. 428 (1802) ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Boyle v. Zacharie
` 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 648 (1832) ................................................................................... 10
`
`Cargill, Inc. v. United States
` 173 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................. 7
`
`City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co.
` 172 U.S. 1 (1898) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.
` 210 U.S. 405 (1908) ....................................................................................... 21, 28
`
`Donaldson v. Becket (H.L. 1774)
` 17 The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to
`the Year 1803 (William Cobbett ed., London, 1813) ........................................... 12
`
`
`Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co.
` 199 U.S. 279 (1905) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`Doolittle v. Walton
` 2 Dick. 442 (Ch. 1771) ......................................................................................... 17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 11 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
` 547 U.S. 388 (2006) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Fontain v. Ravenel
` 58 U.S. (17 How.) 369 (1855) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S
` 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Goodeson v. Gallatin
` 2 Dick. 455 (Ch. 1771) ......................................................................................... 17
`
`Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.
` 527 U.S. 308 (1999) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
` 326 U.S. 99 (1945) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Hecht Co. v. Bowles
` 321 U.S. 321 (1944) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`Hicks v. Raincock
` 2 Dick. 647 (Ch. 1783) ......................................................................................... 12
`
`Horton v. Maltby
` LI Misc MS 112 (Ch. 1783)............................................................... 12, 15, 16, 18
`
`In re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Pat. Litig.
` 831 F. Supp. 1354 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ....................................................................... 26
`
`Liardet v. Johnson
` (Ch. 1780), as printed in H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui & Sean Bottomley,
` Patent-Infringement Suits and the Right to a Jury Trial
` 72 Am. U. L. Rev. 1293, 1343 (2023) .................................................................. 18
`
`Macom Tech. Sols. Holdings, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG
` 881 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.
` 546 U.S. 132 (2005) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 12 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`Matthews v. Rodgers
` 284 U.S. 521 (1932) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`McConihay v. Wright
` 121 U.S. 201 (1887) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.
` 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 23
`
`Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Co.
` 67 U.S. 545 (1863) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.
` 54 U.S. 518 (1852) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.
` 849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 24
`
`Robinson v. Campbell
` 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 212 (1818) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.
` 422 U.S. 49 (1975) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po
` 336 U.S. 368 (1949) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VidStream LLC
` 825 F. App’x 844 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................... 5
`
`U.S. v. Melrose East Subdivision
` 357 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 20, 29
`
`United States v. W. T. Grant Co.
` 345 U.S. 629 (1953) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`Walgreen v. Sara Creek Property Co.
` 966 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................ 15
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 13 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) ............................................................................................ vii
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) ............................................................................................ vii
`28 U.S.C. § 1295 ..................................................................................................... vii
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ..................................................................................................... vii
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) ................................................................................................ vii
`
`Other Authorities
`
` 1
`
` George Spence
` The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery 706 (1846) ........................ 14
`
` 1
`
` John Norton Pomeroy & John Norton Pomeroy Jr.
` Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 294 (4th ed. 1919) .......................................... 9
`
` 1
`
` Justice Story & A.E. Randall
` Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 932
` (Sweet and Maxwell, Limited, 3d ed. 1920) ........................................................ 13
`
`11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane
` Federal Practice & Procedure § 2941 (2d ed. 1995) ............................................. 9
`
` 2
`
` J. Harrison et al.
` The Practice of the Court of Chancery 170–91 (London, A. Strahan 1796) ....... 17
`
` 3
`
` P. Edmunds, et al.
` Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure § 857 (2d ed. 1943) ........................................ 10
`
` 4
`
` Pomeroy & Pomeroy
` Equity Jurisprudence § 1352 ......................................................................... 13, 16
`
` 4
`
`
`
` Pomeroy & Pomeroy
` Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 1347 ............................................................. 18
`
`A. Mossoff
` Injunctions for Patent Infringement: Historical Equity Practice
`Between 1790–1882, 38 Harv. J.L. & Tech. __ (forthcoming 2025) ................... 22
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 14 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`A. Mossoff
` The Injunction Function: How and Why Courts Secure Property Rights
`in Patents, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1581 (2021) .................................................. 27
`
`
`H. Givington & A. Fountaine
` Snell’s Principles of Equity 583 (20th ed. 1929) .................................................. 13
`
`H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui & Sean Bottomley
` Patent-Infringement Suits and the Right to a Jury Trial
` 72 Am. U. L. Rev. 1293 (2023) ............................................................................ 12
`
`H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui & Sean Bottomley
` The Traditional Burdens for Final Injunctions in Patent Cases c.1789 and
`Some Modern Implications, 71 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 403 (2020) .. 13, 15, 19, 25
`
`
`H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui
` Equitable Infringement Remedies before 1800, in Research Handbook on the
`History of Copyright Law 195 (Isabella Alexander & H. Tomás Gómez-
`Arostegui eds., 2016) ............................................................................................ 26
`
`
`H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui
` Prospective Compensation in Lieu of a Final Injunction in Patent and
`Copyright Cases, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1661 (2010) ............................................ 23
`
`
`Kristen Jakobsen Osenga
` “Efficient” Infringement and Other Lies
` 52 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1085 (2022) ....................................................................... 27
`
`R. Hinde
` The Modern Practice of the High Court of Chancery 584 (London 1785) ... 17, 19
`
`Story & Randall
` Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 20 ....................................................... 20
`
`Story & Randall
` Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 925 ..................................................... 16
`
`Story & Randall
` Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 930 .............................................. 16, 17
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 15 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`Story & Randall
` Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 931 ..................................................... 13
`
`Story & Randall
` Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 933 ..................................................... 14
`
`William Williamson Kerr & Wm. A. Herrick
` A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Injunctions in Equity (Boston, 1871) ..... 27
`
`Wright & Miller
` 11A Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2944 (3d ed.) ........................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 16 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5 Plaintiff-Appellant states:
`
`
`1. This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal involved Plaintiff
`Youtoo Technologies’ request for permission to appeal the District Court’s
`Order granting Twitter’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. Youtoo Technologies
`LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2017-106. This Court denied Youtoo
`Technologies’ request for permissive appeal. Dkt. No. 12 in Youtoo
`Technologies LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2017-106.
`
`2. The Court previously heard an appeal involving the patent at issue in this
`appeal, reported at Twitter, Inc. v. VidStream, LLC, 825 F. App’x 844 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 17 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`As a patent-infringement case, the district court has subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The district court denied
`
`VidStream’s motion for a preliminary injunction. This Court has subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1), (c)(1) and 1295.
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 18 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the Supreme Court
`
`reconfirmed that injunctive relief in patent-infringement cases must be evaluated
`
`according to “traditional principles of equity.” “Traditional principles of equity” is
`
`a term of art defined by established precedent. Such principles are not merely
`
`vague notions of fairness or justice but instead constitute “the principles of the
`
`system of judicial remedies which had been devised and was being administered
`
`by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the separation of the two
`
`countries.” Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. Southern, Inc., 306 U.S. 563, 568 (1939);
`
`see also Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S.
`
`308 (1999) (reconfirming Atlas Life).
`
`At the time of separation, the Court of Chancery had regularly resolved
`
`patent-infringement disputes according to well-established, well-evidenced
`
`principles. One such principle was analyzing irreparable harm. But the rule
`
`administered in Chancery looked nothing like some modern formulations of
`
`irreparable harm. Rather, in patent cases, the Chancery uniformly recognized that
`
`a likelihood of ongoing injury itself constituted irreparable injury under its
`
`traditional principles. Per eBay, Atlas Life, and Grupo Mexicano, this principle—
`
`that the likelihood of ongoing infringement itself is irreparably injurious—is the
`
`one “which had been devised and was being administered by the English Court of
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 19 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`Chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries,” Atlas Life, 306 U.S. at
`
`568, and thus constrains courts’ equitable injunctive discretion today.
`
`Departing from this traditional principle of equity, the district court took a
`
`different view of its own discretion. Characterizing the controlling Atlas Life rule
`
`as a “backward-looking approach,” Appx0006, the district court instead rejected a
`
`finding of irreparable injury not based on any understanding of irreparable injury
`
`according to established Chancery principles but instead because “VidStream is a
`
`nonpracticing entity,” because the “lack of commercial activity by a patentee is a
`
`significant factor in the calculus of whether the patentee will suffer irreparable
`
`harm absent an injunction,” and because VidStream failed to meet a burden of
`
`“showing that [Twitter’s] purported infringement cannot be compensated by
`
`monetary damages.” Appx0006–0007. On these bases alone, the district court
`
`denied VidStream’s request for preliminary relief.
`
`This was error. According to the principles administered by the Court of
`
`Chancery at the founding, the likelihood of ongoing infringement itself constituted
`
`irreparable injury. VidStream established this likelihood with factual proof. This
`
`Court should thus vacate the district court’s order denying VidStream’s motion for
`
`preliminary injunction and instruct the district court that the likelihood of ongoing
`
`infringement, when established by the plaintiff, is irreparable injury as a matter of
`
`law under the traditional principles of equity.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 20 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`II. QUESTION PRESENTED
`eBay dictates that district courts must evaluate injunctive relief in patent-
`
`infringement cases according to the “traditional principles of equity.” 547 U.S. at
`
`394. These substantive principles are “the principles of the system of judicial
`
`remedies which had been devised and [were] being administered by the English
`
`Court of Chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries.” Atlas Life,
`
`306 U.S. at 568. At the time of separation, the Chancery uniformly administered a
`
`rule that the likelihood of ongoing infringement was itself irreparably injurious for
`
`which remedies at law, like damages, were inadequate. VidStream established
`
`below that infringement was likely to continue in the absence of a preliminary
`
`injunction, along with establishing all the other conditions for granting preliminary
`
`relief. The question presented is:
`
`Did the district court err by denying injunctive relief based only on an
`
`alleged lack of irreparable harm, where VidStream established that (i) Twitter’s
`
`infringement was likely to continue and that (ii) traditional principles of equity, as
`
`evidenced by eighteenth-century Chancery practice, considered a likelihood of
`
`ongoing infringement to be irreparable harm?
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`Youtoo Technologies was a Texas-based startup. It developed a software
`
`suite to assist content-creators receive and distribute user interactions, including
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 21 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`user-generated video content, in traditionally passive content distribution, like
`
`television. In connection with this work, three individuals at Youtoo—including
`
`Ryland Reed and his co-inventor Mark Harwell—conceived a better way to
`
`capture and distribute user- generated video content for ultimate distribution via
`
`instructions on a client device. This innovation led to the inventions claimed in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304 (the ’304 patent), the patent at issue in this appeal.
`
`Just as user-generated video content was becoming mainstream for social
`
`media companies, Youtoo and Twitter began lengthy discussions about a potential
`
`partnership. Ultimately, a commercial deal never materialized, and Youtoo filed
`
`this case on March 18, 2016. Appx3291.
`
`In the eight years since, co-inventor Mark Harwell succumbed to cancer, and
`
`Youtoo went bankrupt. Appx3453–3458. But Twitter’s infringement continued
`
`unabated. In the meantime, Twitter has sought to invalidate the ’304 patent in one
`
`proceeding after the other. Twitter first moved to invalidate the patent for lack of
`
`subject-matter eligibility. Twitter initially prevailed. Appx3300–3304. Despite
`
`that finding, Twitter then petitioned the PTO for inter partes review to invalidate
`
`the ’304 Patent on obviousness grounds—forcing Youtoo to incur litigation costs
`
`that helped push the company into insolvency. Appx3337–3420; Appx2206,
`
`Declaration of Ryland Reed ¶ 5 (attributing Youtoo ’s bankruptcy to Twitter’s
`
`infringement and its aggressive litigation tactics). Twitter’s IPR petition ultimately
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 22 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`failed. Twitter appealed to this Court, and its appeal failed, too. See Twitter, Inc.
`
`v. VidStream LLC, 825 F. App’x 844, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2020). After the IPR
`
`proceedings, Youtoo’s successor-in-interest VidStream returned to the district
`
`court seeking reconsideration of the original subject-matter eligibility ruling. Dkt.
`
`155. Twitter opposed reconsideration, continuing to contest the eligibility of the
`
`’304 Patent. The district court ultimately reconsidered its subject-matter eligibility
`
`ruling, denied Twitter’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter eligibility, and
`
`allowed the case to proceed. D. Ct. Dkt. 150.
`
`The long pendency of the case has been in large part due to a variety of
`
`procedural delays. District court proceedings were entirely dormant from
`
`December 2017 until March 2020 when appeals from the IPR petition concluded,
`
`and the district court case was formally stayed from December 2017 until April
`
`2021. See D. Ct. Dkt. 190. The patents-in-suit were also subject to Youtoo
`
`Technologies LLC’s bankruptcy proceedings from November 2017 through April
`
`2018. See Appx3453–3458.
`
`Ultimately, the case proceeded to discovery and claim construction. Claim
`
`construction and indefiniteness briefing concluded in December 2022. D. Ct. Dkt.
`
`256. The Court entered its claim-construction ruling and indefiniteness rulings a
`
`year later, in December 2023, rejecting Twitter’s assertions that the asserted claims
`
`were indefinite and rejecting Twitter’s proposed limiting constructions.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Case: 24-2265 Document: 11 Page: 23 Filed: 09/09/2024
`
`
`
`Appx3329–3336. Three weeks later, VidStream asked the district court to
`
`preliminarily enjoin Twitter from continuing to infringe claims 22 and 24 of the
`
`’304 patent through the Record and Share feature of the Twitter application.
`
`Appx0029–Appx0034; Appx0056.
`
`VidStream showed that it was likely to succeed at trial; it presented the
`
`analysis of Dr. Mark T. Jones showing how this aspect of the Twitter app met each
`
`and every limitation of these claims as well as pre-rebutting Twitter’s likely
`
`invalidity arguments. Appx0029–Ap