Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. , 407 F. App'x 452 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is n0np1'ecedential.
    United States Court of AppeaIs
    for the FederaI Circuit
    STRECK, INC., _
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    V.
    RESEARCH & DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC. and
    TECHNE CORPORATION,
    Defen,dants-Appellants.
    2011-1044
    ¢
    Appeal from the United States District; C0urt for the
    District of Nebraska in case n0. 06-CV-0458, Chief Judge
    J0seph F. Batai110n. .
    ON MOTION
    Bef0re RADER, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN and LINN, C'ircuit
    Judges.
    FR1EDMAN, Circuiz Ju,dge.
    ORDER
    Research & Diagn0stic Systems, Inc. and Tech11e C0r-
    p0rati0n (c011ective1y "Research & Diagn0stic Systems")
    move for a stay, pending disposition of this appea1, of the
    STRECK V. RESEA.RCH & DIAGNOSTIC 2
    permanent injunction entered by the United States Dis-
    trict Court for the District of Nebraska. Streck, lnc.
    opposes. Research & Diagnostic Systems replies.
    To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a movant must es-
    tablish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or,
    failing that, nonetheless demonstrate a substantial case
    on the merits provided that the harm factors militate in
    its favor. Stando:rd Hcwen,s Prods. v. Gencor Indu,s., 
    897 F.2d 511
    , 513 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill,
    
    481 U.S. 770
    , 778 (1987)). In deciding whether to grant a
    stay, pending appeal, this court “assesses the m0vant’s
    chances of success on the merits and weighs the equities
    as they affect the parties and the public.” E.I. du Pont de
    Nemours & Co. u. Phillips Petr0leum Co., 
    835 F.2d 277
    ,
    278 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Stan,dard Hcwens Prods.,
    
    897 F.2d at 513
    .
    Based on the arguments in the motions papers, and
    without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case
    by a merits pane1, we determine that Research 82 Diag-
    nostic Systems has not met its burden to obtain a stay of
    the permanent injunction.
    Upon consideration thereof,
    IT ls ORDERED THAT:
    The motion is denied Any other pending motions are
    denied as moot.
    FoR THE CoURT
    1 8  /s/ Jan Horbaly
    Date J an Horbaly
    Clerk
    cc: Kurt J. Niederluecke, Esq.
    §
    5
    Floyd R. Nation, Esq. u_S_ noonan lN1f0R
    §§
    §§
    Tl‘lE FEDE
    JA.N 1 3Z0l1
    .W|HORBA|.Y
    0|.EH(
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-1044

Citation Numbers: 407 F. App'x 452

Judges: Friedman, Linn, Rader

Filed Date: 1/18/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023