By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Adtile Technologies, Inc. v. Perion Network Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 15-1193-SLR (D.Del., June 23, 2016), the Court denied plaintiff Adtile Technologies, Inc.’s motion for preliminary injunction after concluding that Adtile had not shown likelihood of success on the merits of the claims asserted:  Delaware statutory misappropriation of trade secrets, common law misappropriation of confidential information, copyright infringement, and Lanham Act false designation of origin and unfair competition.  In reaching its conclusion, the court determined that Adtile’s trade secrets and confidential information were not sufficiently delineated from what is either publicly available or discernable from visual details of published Motion Ads. Id. at *13.  The Court also noted that the fact that Adtile included, without attribution, the handphone image in two ads provided to Undertone as deliverables under the License Agreement weakened Adtile’s copyright and trademark infringement arguments. Id.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

The general take away is the granting of a preliminary injunctions is considered an “extraordinary remedy” that will only be granted in limited circumstances. Parties seeking preliminary injunctions must demonstrate the fundamental requirements of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if relief is not granted to have any chance of obtaining a preliminary injunction.