Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You run a company sued for patent infringement. You employ a lot of people in good jobs, and you make good money. The other side seeks a TRO to enjoin your operations, and the judge says "no." Time passes. A new judge is assigned. The other side brings a new motion for a TRO, citing new facts and new law. The judge grants this motion, and orders you to suspend your operations. Do you obey the order, or do you figure that the first judge's ruling was good enough to give you cover?
|
Keep running. If you stop, you give the other side the argument that you can stop and tank the position that stopping would cause you irreparable harm. The irreparable harm standard is usually used as the basis fir the TRO, but it can be spun in reverse as persuasively.
I hated doing TROs. I can't think of a more annoying procedure. It's like having trial where no one's prepared.
Threaded Mode