The opinion of the court was delivered by: John F. Keenan, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff REDF Organic Recovery, LLC's ("REDF" or "Plaintiff") application for a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant Steve Kafin ("Kafin" or "Defendant") to give power of attorney to REDF so that REDF can pursue a patent application currently pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") but set to be deemed "abandoned" on November 23, 2012. Pursuant to an Order to Show Cause entered on October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs were also directed to show cause why the matter should not be referred to arbitration. The matter was heard on November 15, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the preliminary injunction is denied and the action is stayed pending arbitration.
REDF is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Bernardsville, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Defendant Kafin is Managing Member of co-defendant Organic Dynamics. Kafin is a resident of Miami Beach, Florida, and Organic Dynamics is a Florida company with a principal place of business in Miami Beach, Florida. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff proffers that venue in this Court is proper pursuant to a forum selection clause in a license agreement entered into by the parties (the "License Agreement"). (Compl. ¶ 6.)
The License Agreement between Organic Recovery and REDF provided REDF with a license for certain fertilizer technology owned by Organic Recovery. Specifically, REDF acquired exclusive rights in New York and non-exclusive rights in the rest of the United States to technology and intellectual property used to convert food and other organic waste into liquid organic fertilizer. REDF facilitates the purchase of the liquid organic fertilizer by commercial and organic farmers, as well as home gardeners. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Under the License Agreement, Organic Recovery was required to pursue a patent for this technology. Organic Recovery filed the patent application, and was awaiting response from the PTO as of March 29, 2009, when it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Florida.
As part of the bankruptcy proceeding, Kafin purchased Organic Recovery's assets, which included the technology that is the subject of the License Agreement. Upon purchasing the technology, Kafin asserted that he was not bound by the License Agreement with REDF, and the issue was litigated before the Florida bankruptcy court. In December 2011, the Florida bankruptcy court found that the License Agreement is binding upon Kafin. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff contends that since Kafin is bound by the License Agreement, he must continue to pursue the patent application, and keep REDF apprised of his progress. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-15.)
In May, the PTO issued a "non-final" rejection of certain aspects of the patent application, and asked Kafin to respond within three months with more comprehensive information about the technology. Because the PTO also gave a three-month grace period, the deadline for Kafin to respond is November 23, 2012. If he does not submit a reply by the deadline, the patent application will be deemed "abandoned." (Compl. ¶¶ 20-23.) Kafin informed REDF that he probably will not pursue the patent application, based upon advice from his patent attorney that the technology is likely not patentable. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-25.)
REDF contends that it has invested substantial amounts of money and effort in commercializing the technology, expecting that it would be patented. REDF formed a "Joint Venture Sublicensee" named California Safe Soil ("CSS"), constructed a plant in West Sacramento, California, to test the technology, and explored contracts with supermarkets to advance the availability of this technology. These steps were taken "as a first step before proceeding with the construction and operation of larger, commercial-scale" facilities that use this technology. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17). REDF represents that the patent application is of critical importance to the future viability of REDF and CSS. REDF further states that it is working with a patent attorney, who believes the technology is patentable, and has prepared a response to the PTO with the additional information it required.
The Court will first address the application for a preliminary injunction. Next, the Court will consider Defendant's motion to dismiss, which he filed on November 15, 2012. At oral argument that same day, Plaintiff stated that response papers were unnecessary, citing the time-sensitive nature of this dispute. Finally, the Court will consider the arbitrability of this dispute.
Preliminary injunctive relief is "one of the most drastic tools in the arsenal of judicial remedies." Hanson Trust PLC v. SCM Corp., 774 F.2d 47, 60 (2d Cir. 1985). Because it is such an extraordinary remedy, it should be granted only "when the intervention of a court of equity is essential to protect a party's property rights against injuries that would otherwise be irremediable." Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 173 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 1999). Upon demonstration that legal remedies are inadequate to make a party whole, a movant may obtain injunctive relief upon the showing of: "(1) irreparable harm or injury, and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the movant." Earthweb Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d 299, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Courts have long recognized that irreparable harm is the sine qua non of a preliminary injunction. Demonstrating the mere possibility of harm is not sufficient to warrant the drastic imposition of a preliminary injunction. Rather, the movant must present sufficient proof to provide a reasonable basis for believing that the injury is real and imminent. See Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm primarily because the "abandonment" of a patent application is reversible, pursuant to federal regulation. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137, which governs the PTO's standard for reviving a patent that has been deemed abandoned, "[r]evival of [an] abandoned application" is permitted where the applicant can show that the delay was either unavoidable or unintentional. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.137. The application's abandonment will be deemed unavoidable where the applicant can demonstrate that he exercised the care and diligence "generally used and ...