59. Moreover, the DRM technology found in e.Digital’s eVU is outside the scope of
the exclusive license granted to digEcor under the DRM Agreement, as discussed above.
60. Further, digEcor failed to prove that it is entitled to any damages under the DRM
Agreement. Under the Agreement, any consequential damages are barred. Because e.Digital did
not accept digEcor’s tender of the $25,000 license fee, the damages cap found in the DRM
Agreement limits digEcor’s claim for damages to zero.
61. digEcor failed to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm from any alleged
breach of the DRM Agreement. Proof of irreparable harm is required to secure injunctive relief.
36
See Port City Prop. v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
518 F.3d 1186, 1190 (10th Cir. 2008) (stating that
irreparable harm must be shown as a condition to entry of injunction based on contract).
Moreover, the Court finds that any injury under the DRM Agreement would be adequately
redressed by the payment of money damages. Therefore, digEcor is not entitled to any injunctive
relief in connection with this claim.
62. Because digEcor has failed to prove irreparable harm, the court need not resolve
whether the limitation on damage clause which provides the exclusive remedy under the DRM
Agreement is overridden by the provision recognizing the right to injunctive relief.
63. Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment dismissing digEcor’s claim for breach
of the DRM Agreement with prejudice and on the merits.
