Case: 21-1024 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 07/20/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SHURE INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CLEARONE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1024
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:17-cv-03078, Judge
Edmond E. Chang.
______________________
Decided: July 20, 2021
______________________
J. DEREK MCCORQUINDALE, Finnegan Henderson
Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP, Reston, VA, argued for
plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ALEXANDER
MICHAEL BOYER, ELLIOT COOK, LUKE HAMPTON
MACDONALD; VLADIMIR AREZINA, VIA Legal, LLC, Chicago,
IL.
CHRISTINA MARIE RAYBURN, Hueston Hennigan LLP,
Newport Beach, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
Case: 21-1024 Document: 63 Page: 2 Filed: 07/20/2021
2 SHURE INCORPORATED v. CLEARONE, INC.
represented by DOUGLAS DIXON, SOURABH MISHRA; KAREN
YOUNKINS, Los Angeles, CA.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
In August 2019, the Northern District of Illinois issued
a preliminary injunction prohibiting Shure from taking
various actions relating to its ceiling tile beamforming mi-
crophone array product, the MXA910:
Shure shall cease manufacturing, marketing, and
selling the MXA910 to be used in its drop-ceiling
mounting configuration, including marketing and
selling the MXA910 in a way that encourages or al-
lows integrators to install it in a drop-ceiling
mounting configuration.
J.A. 119 (emphasis added). The MXA910 had four instal-
lation configurations, only one of which, the drop-ceiling
mounting configuration, potentially infringed. However,
during bond briefing, Shure explained that it could “not
control which configuration is used,” so halting sales “in
one configuration effectively halts sales in all configura-
tions.” J.A. 2311. The injunction prohibits Shure from sell-
ing a product that “allows” integrators to install it in a
drop-ceiling mounting configuration. Because Shure could
not prevent integrators from installing the MXA910 in that
configuration, Shure was prohibited from selling it alto-
gether. From the bond briefing, it is clear that Shure un-
derstood the preliminary injunction to prevent all MXA910
sales. Id. Shure did not appeal the preliminary injunction;
instead, it attempted to design around and released the
MXA910-A.
ClearOne moved for an order holding Shure in con-
tempt, arguing Shure’s commercial activities relating to
Case: 21-1024 Document: 63 Page: 3 Filed: 07/20/2021
SHURE INCORPORATED v. CLEARONE, INC. 3
the MXA910-A violated the preliminary injunction. The
district court determined that the MXA910-A was not col-
orably different from the MXA910 and that Shure’s
MXA910-A was designed in a way that allows integrators
to install it flush with most ceiling grids in the allegedly
infringing drop-ceiling mounting configuration. J.A. 24,
34. Accordingly, the district court held Shure in contempt
for violating the preliminary injunction and ordered it not
to “manufacture, market, or sell the MXA910-A (to the ex-
tent that it still has any MXA910-As to sell).” J.A. 34.
Though we do not have jurisdiction over a contempt order
under the current posture of the case, Shure argues this
Court has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because
the contempt order modified the injunction.
Shure argues the district court expanded the prelimi-
nary injunction when it enjoined all sales of the MXA910-
A, instead of just prohibiting the MXA910-A when used in
a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. The preliminary in-
junction’s plain language and Shure’s representations dur-
ing bond briefing demonstrate why this case lacks merit.
The district court’s contempt order determined the
MXA910-A was a colorable imitation of the MXA910 and
faithfully applied the preliminary injunction—which
barred sales if the product was capable of being installed
in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. To the extent
Shure believes the preliminary injunction is too broad, it
should have appealed that order. The order before us does
not modify the injunction, and therefore, we have no juris-
diction over this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dis-
miss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
Costs to ClearOne.
