## Facts

- Mirion Technologies (Canberra), Inc. (Mirion) manufactured radiation-detection equipment, including high-purity germanium detectors that must be kept at extremely low temperatures to operate properly.
- Sunpower, Inc. (Sunpower) manufactured cryocoolers used to cool germanium detectors; Sunpower also produced cryocoolers for detectors sold by its corporate parent.
- Mirion’s corporate parent and Sunpower’s corporate parent competed in the germanium-detector market and each held a significant share.
- Mirion had been using another cryocooler supplier but believed that supplier’s product was unreliable and wanted to transition to a different cryocooler for certain detector systems.
- On June 16, 2017, Mirion and Sunpower entered into a supply agreement under which Sunpower would supply Mirion with cryocoolers for use in Mirion’s detector products.
- The agreement contemplated that Mirion could use other suppliers in certain circumstances, and Mirion had discussed alternative cryocoolers with other manufacturers, even though Mirion preferred Sunpower’s product.
- On June 29, 2017, Mirion submitted a purchase order for 250 cryocoolers under the supply agreement.
- On June 30, 2017, after Sunpower’s president expressed concerns (having not participated in negotiating or signing the agreement), a Sunpower representative sent Mirion a notice purporting to reject the agreement.
- Sunpower later withdrew the rejection notice, but Sunpower did not fill Mirion’s purchase order.
- Mirion sued Sunpower for breach and sought specific performance, including a preliminary injunction that would require Sunpower to manufacture and deliver the 250 cryocoolers while the case proceeded.

## Issues

1. Whether Mirion satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction that would compel Sunpower to specifically perform the supply agreement by manufacturing and delivering 250 cryocoolers.

## Decision

- The court denied Mirion’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court treated Mirion’s request as a mandatory injunction because it sought affirmative, ongoing performance (manufacturing and delivery), which is disfavored at the preliminary stage.
- Mirion did not show the type of irreparable harm required for preliminary relief, because the asserted injuries from non-delivery were mainly economic and could be remedied through money damages if Mirion ultimately prevailed.
- The record showed that Mirion had considered other cryocooler options and had contractual flexibility to use other suppliers in some situations, which cut against a finding that Sunpower’s performance was uniquely unavailable.
- The balance of harms did not support forcing Sunpower to prioritize production for a competitor during litigation, especially where the court would effectively be granting much of the requested final relief before trial.
- The public-interest factor did not outweigh Mirion’s weak showing on irreparable harm and the heightened caution applied to mandatory preliminary injunctions.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; the movant must show (among other factors) a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent the injunction.
- Irreparable harm generally requires an injury that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages after final judgment.
- In commercial contract disputes, lost sales, increased costs, and similar economic losses usually weigh against preliminary injunctive relief because they can be quantified and compensated.
- Courts apply added caution to mandatory preliminary injunctions that would alter the status quo by compelling affirmative conduct and closely resemble the ultimate relief sought.
- The existence of substitute sources or workable alternatives, even if less preferred, tends to show that legal remedies are adequate and that injunctive relief is not necessary.

## Conclusion

Mirion sought an order compelling Sunpower to manufacture and deliver 250 cryocoolers under a supply agreement, but the court denied the requested mandatory preliminary injunction because Mirion failed to show irreparable harm beyond economic loss, alternatives were available or contemplated, and compelling production would effectively award major final relief and impose significant burdens before the merits were resolved.


Mirion Technologies (Canberra), Inc. v. Sunpower, Inc., 2017 WL 5090436 (2017)