Opinion
C23-0845JLR
06-22-2023
ORDER
JAMES L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is Plaintiff Anova Applied Electronics, Inc.'s (“Anova”) ex parte motion for injunctive relief. (Mot. (Dkt. # 10).) Anova seeks a preliminary injunction ordering all Defendants “to immediately cease advertising, offering, selling, and importing . . . in the United States” certain products that Anova alleges violate its registered patent and trademarks. (See generally id.) A court, however, “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1) (emphasis added). Here, Anova has not provided any evidence that it has given notice of its motion for injunctive relief to Defendants. (See generally Mot.; see also Cho Decl. (Dkt. # 11).) Therefore, the court DENIES Anova's ex parte motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. # 10).
Anova may either (1) renew its motion for a preliminary injunction with proof that it has given notice to Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) or (2) file a motion for a temporary restraining order, provided it follows the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b). Before it does so, Anova shall carefully review the court's local rules regarding the filing of motions and conform to those rules in filing any further motions. See, e.g., Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d) (regarding noting dates for motions), 7(e)(6) (requiring parties to include in the signature block of their briefs “the certification of the signer as to the number of words” in the brief). In addition, Anova shall ensure that its proposed order complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) (setting forth the requirements for an order granting injunctive relief) and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(4) (requiring that the movant “include a proposed order specifically setting forth the relief requested and describing in reasonable detail the act or acts to be restrained or required”).