Creative Compounds, Llc. v. Starmark Laboratories ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • l NOTE: This order is n0nprecedential.
    Un1ted States Court of AppeaIs
    for the Federal Circuit
    CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    V.
    STARMARK LABORATORIES,
    Defendant-Appellee. '
    2010-1445
    Appea1 from the United States District Court for the
    Southern District of F1orida in case n0. 07-CV-22814,
    Judge A1an S. Go1d.
    ON MOTION
    B<-efore GAJARsA, ScHALL, and M00RE, Circuit Ju,dges.
    SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
    ORDER
    Creative Co1npounds, LLC moves for a stay, pending
    disposition of this appea1, of the permanent injunction
    entered by the United States District C0urt for the South-
    ern District of F1orida. Star1nark Lab0rat0ries 0pposes.
    Creative replies Starmark moves for attorney fees and
    CREATIVE COMPOU`NDS V. STARMARK LAB 2
    sanctions related to the motion for a stay and "Creative's
    two prior premature appeals to this Court and a petition
    for writ of mandamus." Creative opposes.
    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. Stcmdard Hcwens Prods. v. Gen,cor Indus., 
    897 F.2d 511
    , 513 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Hilton u. BraunskiZZ,
    481 U.S. 77O, 778 (1987)). In deciding whether to grant a
    stay, pending appeal, this court “assesses the movant’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 & C0. u. Phillips Petroleum Co., 
    835 F.2d 277
    ,
    278 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Standard 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 panel, we determine that Creative Com-
    pounds has not met its burden to obtain a stay of the
    permanent injunction We similarly determine that
    Starmark has not demonstrated that sanctions and
    attorney fees are warranted.
    Upon consideration thereof,
    IT ls 0RDERE:o THAT:
    The motions are denied.
    FOR THE COURT
    NOV 1 8 2010 131 Jan norway
    Date J an H0rbaly
    Clerk
    cc: MattheW A. Rosenberg, Esq.
    Frederick A. Tecce, Esq. FILED
    U.S. COURT 0F APPEALS FOR
    THE FEDERAL C!RCUiT
    NOV 1 8 2010
    .lAN HORBALY
    CLERK
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-1445

Filed Date: 11/18/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021