Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

425 F. App'x 896
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 632 F.3d 1246
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided June 23, 2011·No. 2010-1377, 2010-1400, 2010-1408·Unpublished

Opinion

ON MOTION

ORDER

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. moves for a stay, pending disposition of this appeal, of the permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Arlington Industries, Inc. opposes. Bridgeport replies.

To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a movant must establish 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. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 778, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (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. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed.Cir. 1987). See also Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir. 1990).

Based on the arguments in the motions papers, and without prejudicing the ulti *897 mate disposition of this case by a merits panel, we determine that Bridgeport has not met its burden to obtain a stay of the injunction.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 425 F. App'x 896 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

425 F. App'x 896 (Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related