Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc.

428 F. App'x 987
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 664 F.3d 922
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided July 1, 2011·No. 2011-1337·Unpublished

Opinion

ON MOTION

ORDER

RADER, Chief Judge.

Celsis in Vitro, Inc. moves for an injunction pending disposition of this appeal. CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corporation oppose. Celsis replies.

Rule 8(a)(l)(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes this court to grant an injunction pending appeal. Similar to a motion to stay a judgment or injunction pending appeal, which is authorized under the same rule, our determination is governed by four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (1) whether the stay applicant had made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent relief; (3) whether issuance of the order will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).

Based on the arguments in the motions papers, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this ease by a merits panel, we determine that Celsis has not met its burden.

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

Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc., 428 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

428 F. App'x 987 (Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. Cellzdirect, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hilton v. Braunskill
481 U.S. 770 (Supreme Court, 1987)