IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—E.D. Mich.: Preliminary injunction denied in industrial mixer drawing dispute over failure to show likely infringement, (May 1, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate likelihood of success as the defendants’ reverse-engineering evidence supported independent creation, and the alleged harm remained speculative.

A federal district court in Michigan denied a preliminary injunction sought by an industrial equipment manufacturer in its copyright infringement and breach-of-contract suit against a competitor, finding no likelihood of success on the merits and no showing of irreparable harm. The court held that the defendants’ detailed reverse-engineering evidence supported an independent creation defense, undermining any inference of copying. It further concluded that the asserted similarities concerned largely functional, unprotectable elements, and that the claimed risk of harm from future bidding processes was speculative and insufficient to justify injunctive relief (B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Machine, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-13348-RJW-PTM (E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2026)).

Background. B&P Littleford, LLC, the plaintiff, is a long-established manufacturer of industrial equipment, including vertical planetary batch mixers used in specialized applications such as solid rocket fuel production. The defendants are Prescott Machine, LLC, a competing industrial equipment company, and Ray Miller, its founder and a former president and CEO of B&P. Following his termination in 2008, Miller formed Prescott, which subsequently entered into competition with B&P, leading to multiple rounds of litigation between the parties.

The dispute centered on 14 copyrighted technical drawings of mixer blade components, for which B&P had obtained copyright registrations. These drawings included detailed specifications, dimensions, and configurations of high- and low-speed mixer blades used in B&P’s 150-gallon vertical mixers. B&P alleged that Prescott created and distributed drawings that were substantially similar to its copyrighted works, including near-identical measurements, component arrangements, and viewpoints. The accused materials consisted of Prescott’s technical drawings used in manufacturing and bidding processes for similar industrial mixers.

The present dispute marked the third round of litigation between the parties. Earlier disputes involving trade secret and copyright claims were settled in 2022 under an agreement requiring Prescott and Miller to destroy all B&P drawings and to refrain from using them. In October 2025, B&P filed the present action alleging continued infringement and breach of the settlement agreement. It subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that Prescott was likely to use infringing drawings in an upcoming bidding process.

Independent creation. The court’s central finding rested on the doctrine of independent creation. Citing Ellis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 1999), and Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Construction, Inc., 994 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2021), the court held that independent creation is a complete defense to copyright infringement. It found that Prescott and Miller presented detailed, consistent evidence demonstrating that they disassembled a lawfully obtained mixer, measured its components using industry-standard techniques, and developed drawings through iterative modeling. This process, supported by expert testimony, strongly indicated that the drawings were independently created rather than copied.

The court emphasized that the absence of evidence showing that Prescott possessed the specific copyrighted drawings at the time of creating its own materials further weakened B&P’s case. Although some legacy materials were later found on devices, B&P failed to establish that the particular drawings at issue were accessed or used in the creation process.

Failure to prove copying. Even assuming independent creation did not apply, the court held that B&P failed to establish copying of protectable elements. Relying on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), the court reiterated that copyright protection extends only to original expression, not functional or utilitarian features.

The court found that most elements identified by B&P, such as measurements, component configurations, and engineering specifications, were functional and necessary for manufacturing, and therefore not protectable. It further held that even the expressive aspects of the drawings, such as layout and viewpoints, were either dictated by functional considerations or not substantially similar between the parties’ works.

Applying the two-step substantial similarity test outlined in Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003), the court concluded that Prescott’s drawings differed meaningfully in the number of views, level of detail, and depiction of components, precluding a finding of actionable similarity.

Reverse engineering and access. The court also addressed B&P’s argument that prior access to its drawings defeated the independent creation defense. Citing Fogerty v. MGM Group Holdings Corp., 379 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2004), it clarified that independent creation may rebut an inference of infringement even where access is established. The court assumed access for purposes of analysis but held that it did not alter the outcome, given the strength of the defendants’ independent creation evidence.

Breach of contract. Turning to the breach-of-contract claim, the court acknowledged that Prescott and Miller may have failed to fully comply with the settlement agreement’s document-destruction requirements. However, applying Michigan’s first-breach doctrine, it held that B&P’s own prior breach barred its claim.

Citing Flamm v. Scherer, 198 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972), the court found that B&P materially breached the settlement agreement by failing to remove litigation-related content from its website within the stipulated time. Because this obligation was expressly designated as a material term, the breach was substantial and precluded B&P from enforcing the agreement against the defendants.

Irreparable harm. The court further held that B&P failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, an essential requirement for preliminary injunctive relief. Citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), it emphasized that speculative harm cannot justify an injunction. B&P’s claim that Prescott might use infringing drawings in a future bidding process was unsupported by concrete evidence. The court noted the absence of proof of ongoing competition, actual use of the disputed drawings, or imminent injury. Without a likelihood of success on the merits, B&P was also not entitled to any presumption of irreparable harm in a copyright case.

Balance of equities and public interest. Although not necessary to its holding, the court observed that the remaining equitable factors also weighed against granting relief. An injunction would hinder Prescott’s ability to compete in a limited market, potentially reducing competition in defense-related contracting. The court noted that such an outcome would be contrary to the public interest, particularly where the plaintiff’s claims lacked merit.

Conclusion. Finally, the court concluded that B&P failed to satisfy the threshold requirements for a preliminary injunction. Its inability to establish likely infringement, combined with the strength of the defendants’ independent creation defense and the speculative nature of the alleged harm, proved fatal to its motion. The request for injunctive relief was therefore denied.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-13348-RJW-PTM.

Judge: White, R.

Attorneys: Alexander Cameron Morris (Winston & Strawn LLP) for B&P Littleford, LLC. Jordan S. Bolton (Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP) for Prescott Machine, LLC.

Companies: B&P Littleford, LLC; Prescott Machine, LLC

Cases: Copyright MichiganNews GCNNews