he need show in order to get the injunction.” Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375, 1378-79 (Fed.Cir.2009) (citing Kowalski v. Chi. Tribune Co., 854 F.2d 168, 170 (7th Cir.1988)). Because of this “sliding scale,” we begin our analysis with discussion of irreparable harm. I. Plaintiff Has Shown a Viable and Immediate Threat of Irreparable Harm. Plaintiff must establish that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, he will suffer irreparable harm. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20, 129 S.Ct. 365. Harm is irreparable when “no damages payment, however great,” can address it, Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 (Fed.Cir.2012) (citations omitted); see also Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992) (<HOLDING>). The threat of irreparable harm must be
holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate holding that where plaintiff sought only equitable relief up through the end of trial and only added claim for legal relief posttrial defendant was entitled to demand jury once legal claim was asserted holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government