The district court denied a motion by appellant Quad/Teeh, Inc., for a preliminary injunction. The district court issued its order after finding that Quad/Teeh had failed to demonstrate either that it had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim or that it would be likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.

We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (abuse of discretion may be established “by showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings”). Based on our review of the record before the district court in connection with the preliminary injunction motion, we uphold the district court’s conclusion that, in light of the court’s construction of one of the terms of the asserted claim, Quad/Teeh failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.

AFFIRMED.