Asgrow Seed Co., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kunkle Seed Co., Inc., Dave Kunkle, Ken Kunkle and Kunklefarms, Defendants-appellees, 845 F.2d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

Asgrow Seed Company (Asgrow) appeals the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Asgrow Seed Company v. Kunkle Seed Company, No. 86-3138-A (W.D. La. Apr. 1, 1987), denying Asgrow's motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm.

In ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction, the court must weigh four factors. Cf. Datascope Corp. v. Kontron Inc., 786 F.2d 398, 400-01, 229 USPQ 41, 42-43 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Concerning the balance of hardships factor, the district court determined that the balance tipped in favor of Kunkle Seed Company. Asgrow, No. 86-3138-A, slip op. at 8-9. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion. T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd. v. Consolidated Medical Equip., Inc., 821 F.2d 646, 647, 3 USPQ2d 1316, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quoting Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 1579, 219 USPQ 686, 691 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 996 (1983)). In this case, we consider the balance of hardships factor to be controlling and affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction.