“While extrinsic evidence may be useful in shedding light on the relevant art, it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the ‘legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.’ ” Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1251 (D.Kan.2009) (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed.Cir.2004)). “Extrinsic evidence is that evidence which is external to the patent and file history, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and articles.”

This type of harm is difficult to calculate, thus supporting Ozonics' claim that it will suffer irreparable harm. Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1262 (D. Kan. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As for reputational harm, Ozonics has demonstrated that it has a strong reputation as an innovator.

Plaintiff argues that the Court should consider the time that it takes to investigate potential infringement claims and to assess the extent of irreparable harm. (Dkt. No. 12 at 4). Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241 (D.Kan. 2009), where plaintiffs also delayed bringing their lawsuit and injunction motion for many months after they learned of defendants' potential infringement. Bushnell is distinguishable because "plaintiffs initially did not perceive defendants as a real threat."

All Defendants have strong connections to the People's Republic of China, and two Defendants are Chinese corporations. Numerous district courts have found that “the prospect of collecting money damages from a foreign defendant with few to no assets in the United States tips in favor of a finding of irreparable harm.” Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1263 (D. Kan. 2009); see also Qin v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns on Schedule “A”, No. 6:21-CV-1243ADA, 2022 WL 80274, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2022); Donahue v. Wang, No. 22-CV-583, 2023 WL 4110543 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2023). True, Blueworks is an American corporation. But Blueworks is also an alter ego of the Ningbo Defendants, which are Chinese corporations.

Accordingly, a patent holder seeking a preliminary injunction must establish, by admissible evidence, that absent issuance of the injunction, the patentee would likely suffer such harms as loss of good will, price erosion, or significant immediate harms such as laying off employees, or collapse of market presence. See Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 488 F.Supp.2d 317 (S.D.N.Y., 2006) (evidence of irreversible price erosion, loss of good will, and forced layoffs in absence of injunctive relief established irreparable harm); The Research Foundation of State University ofNew York, 723 F.Supp.2d 638 (evidence that holder of pharmaceutical patent would experience price erosion and lost profits if generic version of patented drug was allowed onto the market sufficiently established claim of irreparable harm);Bushnell Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1262 (D. Kan., 2009) (because damages for loss of market share and price erosion may be difficult to quantify, proof of such losses state claim of irreparable harm). The party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to such relief, and must do so with evidence, and may not rely on vague claims of potential harm. Quad/Tech, Inc. v. Q.I. Press Controls B.V., 701 F.Supp.2d 644, 655 (E.D.Pa., 2010) (citing Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 92 (3d Cir. 1992).

. Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1260 (D. Kan. 2009) (quoting eBay Inc. v. Merc Exchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006)). The court considers: “(1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest.” Shumaker v. Burgess Servs., LLC, No. 21-cv-02291, 2022 WL 4104272, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 8, 2022) (citing Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009)); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.

Purjes v. DigiNext, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00309, 2020 WL 1276970, at *4 (D. Utah Mar. 17, 2020) (cleaned up). Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1260 (D. Kan. 2009) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006)). Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

; Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 1241, 1263 (D. Kan. 2009) (“the prospect of collecting money damages from a foreign defendant with few to no assets in the United States tips in favor of a finding of irreparable harm”); Nike, Inc. v. Fujian Bestwinn (China) Indus. Co., 166 F.Supp.3d 1177, 1179 (D. Nev. 2016) (“[B]ecause Bestwinn has no presence in the United States, it may be difficult or impossible for NIKE to recover a money judgment against Bestwinn”).

To do so, the court must decide what the words in the claim mean. Id. (citation omitted); see also Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1250 (D. Kan. 2009) (explaining that "[p]roof of infringement requires construction of the patent claims to determine their scope and comparison of the construed claims to the accused device." (citing Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (further citations omitted))).

The Court will not construct arguments or theories on behalf of defendant. See, e.g., Drake v. City of Ft. Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991); Bushnell, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 673 F. Supp.2d 1241, 1258 n.18 (D. Kan. 2009). -------- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Gary Jones Objections To Memorandum & Order [And] No Evidence And Traditional Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #149) filed September 26, 2018 is OVERRULED.