Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

Federal Circuit

Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 2012

Docket2012-1118

StatusUnpublished

This text of Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. (Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit SCIELE PHARMA INC. (NOW KNOWN AS SHIONOGI PHARMA INC.), ANDRX CORPORATION, ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS WATSON LABORATORIES INC. - FLORI_DA), AN_DRX PHARMACEUTICALS L.L.C, ANDRX - LABORATORIES (NJ) INC., ANDRX EU LTD., AND ANDRX LABS L.L.C., - _ Plczintiffs-Appellees, V. LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants-Appellants, V. MYLAN INC. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defencl¢mts. 2012-1118 Appea1 from the United States District C0urt for the District of De1aware in consolidated case n0. 09-CV-0037, Judge R0bert; B. Kug1er.

scIELE PHAR1vLA v. LUPIN LTD 2 0N MOTION Before LOURIE, PROST, and MOORE, C'ircuit Judges. MO0RE, Circuit Judge. 0 R D E R Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals (Lupin) move for a stay, pending disposition of this appeal, of the pre- liminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Scie1e Pharma Inc., Andrx Corp., Andrx Pharmaceuticals lnc., AndrX Phar- maceuticals LLC, Andrx Laboratories Inc., Andrx EU Ltd., and Andrx Labs LLC (Shion0gi) oppose. Lupin replies. Lupin previously requested an expedited briefing schedule on appeal, which was granted. To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a movant must estab- lish 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. Hilt0n v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 77O, 778 (1987). ln deciding whether to grant a stay, pending appeal, this court "as- sesses 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 & Co. v. Phillips Petro- learn Co., 835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also Standard Havens Pr0ds. u. Gencor In.dus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The district court’s order imposing the preliminary in- junction failed to even address Lupin’s obviousness argu- ments The district court did not make any findings of fact or any conclusions of law regarding Lupin’s obviousness arguments fn its subsequent order denying Lupin’s re- quest for a stay of the injunction, the district court ac- knowledged Lupin’s obviousness arguments, but failed to

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

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit SCIELE PHARMA INC. (NOW KNOWN AS SHIONOGI PHARMA INC.), ANDRX CORPORATION, ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS WATSON LABORATORIES INC. - FLORI_DA), AN_DRX PHARMACEUTICALS L.L.C, ANDRX - LABORATORIES (NJ) INC., ANDRX EU LTD., AND ANDRX LABS L.L.C., - _ Plczintiffs-Appellees, V. LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants-Appellants, V. MYLAN INC. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defencl¢mts. 2012-1118 Appea1 from the United States District C0urt for the District of De1aware in consolidated case n0. 09-CV-0037, Judge R0bert; B. Kug1er.

scIELE PHAR1vLA v. LUPIN LTD 2 0N MOTION Before LOURIE, PROST, and MOORE, C'ircuit Judges. MO0RE, Circuit Judge. 0 R D E R Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals (Lupin) move for a stay, pending disposition of this appeal, of the pre- liminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Scie1e Pharma Inc., Andrx Corp., Andrx Pharmaceuticals lnc., AndrX Phar- maceuticals LLC, Andrx Laboratories Inc., Andrx EU Ltd., and Andrx Labs LLC (Shion0gi) oppose. Lupin replies. Lupin previously requested an expedited briefing schedule on appeal, which was granted. To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a movant must estab- lish 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. Hilt0n v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 77O, 778 (1987). ln deciding whether to grant a stay, pending appeal, this court "as- sesses 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 & Co. v. Phillips Petro- learn Co., 835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also Standard Havens Pr0ds. u. Gencor In.dus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The district court’s order imposing the preliminary in- junction failed to even address Lupin’s obviousness argu- ments The district court did not make any findings of fact or any conclusions of law regarding Lupin’s obviousness arguments fn its subsequent order denying Lupin’s re- quest for a stay of the injunction, the district court ac- knowledged Lupin’s obviousness arguments, but failed to

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sciele-pharma-inc-v-lupin-ltd-cafc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack