TELETIES, LLC
v.
1-18 AS IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE "A"
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Teleties, LLC sought stipulated permanent injunctions against multiple defendants to prevent infringement of its design patent. The court denied the motions without prejudice because they failed to comply with local rules requiring detailed legal memoranda and federal rules requiring injunctions to state reasons, terms, and specific descriptions of prohibited conduct.
The court held that the motions and proposed injunctions do not comply with the applicable rules and therefore denied the motions without prejudice. The court clarified that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) applies to permanent injunctions as well as preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders.
[1] A motion seeking entry of a stipulated permanent injunction must comply with local rules requiring a concise statement of the precise relief requested, the basis for the…
[2] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) applies to permanent injunctions and requires that such orders state the reasons for issuance, specific terms, and describe the r…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 65(d) applies to permanent injunctions, as well. See Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F. 3d 1523, 1531 (1th Cir. 1996) (applying Rule 65(d) to a permanent injunction).”
Establishes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) requirements apply to permanent injunctions, not just preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Teleties, LLC moved for entry of stipulated permanent injunctions against Defendants #1-18 that would enjoin them from making, using, sellin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Case No: 6:25-cv-539-JSS-RMN
Plaintiff moves for entry of stipulated permanent injunctions that state: “Settled Defendant[s], their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, and distributors, are permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing any product that infringes [Plaintiff's] intellectual property rights including, but in no way limited to, U.S. Design Patent No. D1,031,161." (Dkts. 90, 90-1, 96, 96-1.) However, the motions—each a single sentence devoid of legal citation, (see Dkts. 90, 96)—do not comply with Local Rule 3.01(a), which requires “a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting the request," M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a). Further, the proposed injunctions, (see Dkts. 90-1, 96-1), do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1), which requires “[e]very order granting an injunction" to "state the reasons why it issued," "state its terms specifically," and "describe in reasonable detail and not by referring to the complaint or other document the act or acts restrained or required,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). Although Rule 65 generally concerns
preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, Rule 65(d) applies to permanent injunctions, as well. See Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F. 3d 1523, 1531 (11th Cir. 1996) (applying Rule 65(d) to a permanent injunction). The proposed injunctions should set forth their terms "with specificity" and describe the acts restrained “in sufficient detail to 'apprise those within [their] scope of the conduct that is being proscribed." Sec. & Exch. Commʼn v. Rivers, 272 F.R.D. 607, 608 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Brown v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., 597 F. 3d 1160, 1185 (11th Cir. 2010)).
Accordingly:
1. The motions (Dkts. 90, 96) are DENIED without prejudice.
2. The motion to strike one of the motions (Dkt. 92) is DENIED as moot.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 8, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Ala. Dep't OF Transp., 597 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Terence D. Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir. 1996)