Judge: Barnes and Noble Nook can sell for now

Spring Design has been handed a legal defeat today as the United States District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the firm’s injunction that would halt sales of Barnes & Noble’s Nook e-reader.

Spring Design previously alleged that Barnes & Noble broke a non-disclosure agreement which centered around the joint developer of an e-reader. The suit claims that the B&N Nook is a duplicate of Spring Design’s Alex, both of which bear a striking resemblance to the other. Spring Design claims that Barnes & Noble used the subject matter of several private meetings to develop its own reader, leaving Spring Design out to dry. Indeed, even the timing of the device’s announcements leaves suspicion: Spring Design announced the Alex on October 19, while Barnes & Noble announced theirs at a gala event on October 20.

A typo in a federal filing. Groovy.

“We showed the Alex e-book design to Barnes & Noble in good faith with the intention of working together to provide a superior dual screen e-book to the market,” said Spring Design Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Eric Kmiec.

Compelling material evidence though it may be, the court remained unconvinced when it struck down the request for injunction in pursuit of more information.

“Viewing all of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Court finds that at this time there is a genuine dispute over whether the nook was derived from information disclosed by [Alex Design] to [Barnes & Noble] or was the product of earlier independent development by [Barnes & Noble]. Thus, the court finds that [Spring Design] has not presented sufficient evidence to show that [Spring Design] is likely to succeed on the merits,” wrote District Judge James Ware.

“Moreover, [Spring Design’s] motion was heard on the day that [Barnes & Noble] launched its nook product, at which time [Spring Design] did not have a commercial product available. Thus, the requested preliminary injunction halting the sale of [Barnes & Noble’s] product would alter the status quo, not preserve it. Accordingly, the Court DENIES [Spring Design’s] motion for a preliminary injunction.”

While Spring Design has definitely lost this round, the war is not yet over. The Court has pledged to expedite the pre-trial process to accommodate Spring Design’s request for an early hearing, and the case will proceed to a full judicial hearing.