Corning Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Picvue Elec., Ltd & Picvue Optoelectronics Int'l, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eglasstrek Gmbh v. Saint-Gobian Advanced Ceramics Corp., Third-Party-Defendant, 365 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Corning Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Picvue Elec., Ltd & Picvue Optoelectronics Int'l, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eglasstrek Gmbh v. Saint-Gobian Advanced Ceramics Corp., Third-Party-Defendant, 365 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
60 citation events (60 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. (ca2, 2023-12-05)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
In Corning, we said, “While it might have been within the discretion of the district court to decide that, under the circumstances, no security was required, . . . the district court was required to make this determination before it entered the preliminary injunction.” Id. at 158 (internal citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Xl Specialty Insurance v. Level Global Investors
S.D.N.Y. · 2012 · confidence medium
Security Bond Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides: “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” This Rule “ ‘thus allows a preliminary injunction to become effective only upon the applicant’s posting of an amount that the district court determines adequate.’ ” WorldCom, 354 F.Supp.2d at 469 (quoting Corning Inc. v. PicVue Electronics, Ltd., 365 F.3d 156…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc.
W.D.N.Y. · 2010 · confidence medium
Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[n]o restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Although “Rule 65(c) gives the district court wide discretion to set the amount of a bond, and even to dispense with the bond requirement where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm ...Corning Inc. v. PicVue Electronics…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Apex Oil Co., Inc.
7th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co., 136 F.3d 537, 543 (7th Cir.1998); Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir.2006); Coming Inc. v. PicVue Electronics, Ltd., 365 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Apex Oil Company, Incorporated
7th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co., 136 F.3d 537, 543 (7th Cir. 1998); Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 10 No. 08–3433 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2006); Corning Inc. v. PicVue Electronics, Ltd., 365 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern
N.D.N.Y. · 2005 · confidence medium
Security Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when issuing a preliminary injunction, the court include a provision for the posting by the moving party of security “for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c); Corning Inc. v. PicVue Electronics, Ltd., 365 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir.2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation
S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · confidence medium
This Rule “thus allows a preliminary injunction to become effective only upon the applicant’s positing of an amount that the district court determines adequate.” Corning Inc. v. Picvue Electronics, Ltd., 365 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir.2002).
discussed Cited "see" City of New York v. Lopez
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 136 (2d Cir. 1997) for the proposition that district courts have “wide discretion . . . to dispense with the bond requirement where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm,” so long as the court makes such a determination before entering a preliminary injunction).
discussed Cited "see" State Farm Mutual v. Tri-Borough
2d Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 158 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996) (explaining that district courts have wide discretion in determining whether to require a security).
discussed Cited "see" IME WatchDog, Inc. v. Gelardi
E.D.N.Y · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Capstone Logistics Holdings, Inc. v. Navarete, 838 F. App’x. 588, 590 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (“[W]e conclude that the form of the permanent injunction entered by the District Court fails to satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d) because it is ‘not possible to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden’ without resorting to extrinsic documents.” (quoting Corning, 365 F.3d at 158)).
discussed Cited "see" Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. (2×)
W.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 158 (2d Cir. 2004). “[T]he district court may dispense with security where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm to the party enjoined.” Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 490 F.2d 1334 , 1356 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited "see" Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. (2×)
W.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 158 (2d Cir. 2004). “[T]he district court may dispense with security where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm to the party enjoined.” Jnt’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 490 F.2d 1334 , 1356 (2d Cir. 1974).
cited Cited "see" ExpertConnect, LLC v. Parmar
2d Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corning 17 Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 157–58 (2d Cir. 2004).
discussed Cited "see" Eastman Kodak Co. v. COLLINS INK CORP.
W.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
In addition, the bond provides the plaintiff with notice of the maximum extent of its potential liability.” Nokia Corp. v. InterDigital, Inc., 645 F.3d 553, 557 (2d Cir.2011). *590 Although the rule is couched in mandatory language, the Second Circuit has held that “the District Court is vested with wide discretion in the matter of security,” and that it may be “proper for the court to require no bond where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm.” Doctor’s Assorts. v. Stuart, 85 F.Sd 975, 985 (2d Cir.1996); accord Corning Inc. v. PicVue Electronics, Ltd., 365 F.3d 156, 158 (…
discussed Cited "see" International Equity Investments, Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners, Ltd.
2d Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 158 (2d Cir.2004); Rosen v. Siegel, 106 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir.1997) (“it would [be] inequitable to punish [the movant] for the district court’s failure to make specific findings.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Government Employees Insurance Company v. Innovation Anesthesia & Pain Services, P.C.
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
“The phrase in such sum as the court deems proper[] indicates that the [d]istrict [c]ourt is vested with wide discretion in the matter of security[,] and it has been held proper for the court to require no bond where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm . . . .” Dr.’s Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 675 (2d Cir. 1961); and then citing Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624, 632 (2d Cir. 1976)); see also State Farm, 120 F.4th at 86 (“Courts have the discretion, however, to…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nielsen Consumer LLC v. the NPD Group, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 157 (2d Cir. 2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Federal Trade Commission v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Rule 65(d) reflects Congress' concern with the dangers inherent in the threat of a contempt citation for violation of an order so vague that an enjoined party may unwittingly and unintentionally transcend its bounds.” Sanders v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 473 F.2d 244 , 247 (2d Cir. 1972) (citing International Longshoremen's Assoc., Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assoc., 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967)); see also Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 157–58 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Corning”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mallet and Company Inc v. Ada Lacayo
3rd Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mass. 1997) (weighing a defendant’s 49 Nevertheless, an injunction ought not leave too much “guesswork” for the Defendants “to determine if [they are] engaging in activities that violate the injunction”; it cannot be “little more than a recitation of the law.” Patriot Homes, 512 F.3d at 415 ; see also Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 157-58 (2d Cir. 2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Deferio v. City of Syracuse
N.D.N.Y. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
P. 65(c); see also Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 158 (2d Cir.2004) (finding that district courts are required to determine the amount of security, or that secuxity is unnecessary, prior to entering a preliminary injunction).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Somoza v. New York City Dept. of Education
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 157 (2d Cir. 2004).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Somoza v. New York City Department of Education
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd., 365 F.3d 156 , 157 (2d Cir.2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Corning Incorporated, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee
v.
Picvue Electronics, Ltd and Picvue Optoelectronics International, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eglasstrek Gmbh v. Saint-Gobian Advanced Ceramics Corporation, Third-Party-Defendant
03-7731.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 22, 2004.
365 F.3d 156
Published

365 F.3d 156

CORNING INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee,
v.
PICVUE ELECTRONICS, LTD and PicVue Optoelectronics International, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Eglasstrek GmbH, Defendant,
v.
Saint-Gobian Advanced Ceramics Corporation, Third-Party-Defendant.

No. 03-7731(L).

No. 03-7939(CON).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: April 14, 2004.

Decided: April 22, 2004.

James P. O'Brien (Christopher A. Michaels, Paul J. Sweeney, Oliver N. Blaise, III, Michael A. Garzo, Jr., on the brief), Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, N.Y., for Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants.

David M. Lascell (Maurice M. Klee, Jerauld E. Brydges, on the brief), Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP, Rochester, N.Y. (Mark W. Lauroesch, Paul R.A. Burke, of counsel), Corning, Inc., for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KEARSE and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.[*]

PER CURIAM.

[*~156]1

Plaintiff-appellee Corning Inc. ("Corning") commenced this action, alleging that defendants-appellants, Picvue Electronics, Ltd. and Picvue Optoelectronics International, Inc. (collectively "PicVue"), and defendant Eglasstrek GmbH ("Eglasstrek") misappropriated its trade secrets and infringed its copyrighted drawings relating to the manufacture of glass for liquid crystal displays. In April 2003, PicVue filed a motion to dismiss Corning's Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or in the alternative for summary judgment on Corning's trade secret and copyright claims. Subsequently, in May 2003, Corning sought a preliminary injunction, enjoining PicVue and Eglasstrek from misappropriating or using Corning's trade secrets and from infringing its copyrighted drawings. By decision and order, dated July 2, 2003, the district court (Telesca, J.) denied PicVue's motion to dismiss, denied PicVue's motion for summary judgment without prejudice, and granted Corning's motion for a preliminary injunction. This appeal followed.

2

A summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion disposes of most of PicVue's challenges. We write to address only PicVue's arguments that the preliminary injunction entered by the district court fails to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) and (d). In considering PicVue's contentions, we review the district court's entry of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, "which will be found if the district court applies legal standards incorrectly or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, or proceed[s] on the basis of an erroneous view of the applicable law[.]" Register.Com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 398 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

3

We first consider PicVue's argument that the injunction entered by the district court is impermissibly vague because it fails to specify the conduct that is enjoined. The injunction provides in relevant part:

4

1) Defendants PicVue Electronics, Ltd., PicVue Optoelectronics International, Inc., and Eglasstrek GmbH, their officers, agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, shall not engage in the misappropriation of Corning's trade secrets, and shall not reap any commercial advantage from any previous misappropriation of Corning's trade secrets, if such misappropriation has occurred.

5

2) Defendants PicVue Electronics, Ltd., PicVue Optoelectronics International, Inc., and Eglasstrek GmbH, their officers, agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them are hereby enjoined from further infringement of Corning's copyrighted works.

6

Corning Inc. v. PicVue Electronics, Ltd., No. 02-CV-6303T, slip op. at 16-17 (W.D.N.Y. July 2, 2003).

[*~157]7

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), "[e]very order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained ...." We have explained that the Rule "reflects Congress' concern with the dangers inherent in the threat of a contempt citation for violation of an order so vague that an enjoined party may unwittingly and unintentionally transcend its bounds." Sanders v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 473 F.2d 244, 247 (2d Cir.1972) (citing Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967)); see also Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476, 94 S.Ct. 713, 38 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974) (per curiam) ("[B]asic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed."). We have also observed that "[a]n order which does not satisfy the requirement of specificity and definiteness will not withstand appellate scrutiny." EFS Marketing, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 76 F.3d 487, 493 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).

8

The preliminary injunction entered by the district court does not identify the trade secrets and the copyrighted works that it bars PicVue from, respectively, misappropriating and infringing. It is thus not possible "to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden," Sanders, 473 F.2d at 247; PicVue would have to resort to extrinsic documents to comply with the order's commands. We therefore conclude that the preliminary injunction does not satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d).

9

We next consider PicVue's complaint that the district court abused its discretion by failing to order Corning to post a security bond at the time the preliminary injunction issued. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) commands:

10

No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.

11

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c). The Rule thus allows a preliminary injunction to become effective only upon the applicant's positing of an amount that the district court determines adequate. While it might have been within the discretion of the district court to decide that, under the circumstances, no security was required, see Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 136 (2d Cir.1997) ("Rule 65(c) gives the district court wide discretion to set the amount of a bond, and even to dispense with the bond requirement where there has been no proof of likelihood of harm...." (internal quotation marks omitted)), the district court was required to make this determination before it entered the preliminary injunction. We therefore find that the district court did not adhere to the requirements of Rule 65(c).

[*~158]12

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we VACATE IN PART the district court's decision and order and REMAND the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. For reasons stated in the accompanying summary order, the decision and order of the district court is also AFFIRMED IN PART. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Notes:

*

Judge Jon O. Newman having recused himself prior to oral argument, this case is decided by the two remaining members of the panel pursuant to § 0.14(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit