DoubleDay Acquisitions LLC v. Envirotainer AB et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03749-SCJ (N.D. Ga. May 13, 2022)

Plaintiff DoubleDay Acquisitions LLC d/b/a CSafe Global filed suit against Defendants Envirotainer AB and Envirotainer Inc. on September 10, 2021 in the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division). The Complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,263,855 and 7,913,511, which are directed to a cargo container that includes a box-shaped composite outer shell that receives a box-shaped composite inner shell for temperature-controlled shipping of sensitive items, including pharmaceuticals.

The case was assigned to Judge Jones. Defendant Envirotainer filed its answer on December 6, 2021 asserting affirmative defenses of invalidity, non-infringement, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, equitable estoppel, failure to join, and failure to mark and/or as barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.

Defendant Envirotainer filed petitions for inter partes review of both asserted patents one week after filing its answer and, on January 7, 2022, moved to stay the instant litigation pending review of the petitions. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction on March 3, 2022 arguing, inter alia, that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its patent infringement claims and that it would suffer irreparable harm in the form of lost revenue, lost market share, price erosion, and damage to its reputation and goodwill if the injunction did not issue. 

On April 5, Defendant filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a corrected response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction adding a single, additional redacted phrase. On May 4, Defendant filed a motion to disregard and for leave to file a surreply, or in the alternative, objections to new argument and evidence contained in plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction. In an order dated May 13, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to substitute a corrected pleading. The Court denied Defendant’s motion for leave to file a surreply or disregard arguments in plaintiff’s preliminary injunction reply finding, in relevant part, that “Plaintiff’s reply filing are sufficiently responsive to Defendants’ response filing that a surreply or other relief is not warranted” and that Defendant had failed to attach or otherwise provide the Court with a proposed surreply with its motion, as required pursuant to Section II (A)(5) of Appendix H of the Court’s local rules. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on May 13.