Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

written étatefi QEnurt of Qppealz for the jfetuzral QEirmit

SCIELE PHARMA INC. (NOW KNOWN AS SHIONOGI PHARMA INC.), ‘ Plaintiff-Appellee,

AND

ANDRX CORPORATION, ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS WATSON LABORATORIES INC. ~— FLORIDA), ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS L.L.C., ANDRX LABORATORIES (NJ) INC., ANDRX EU LTD., AND ANDRX LABS L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs,

V.

LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS

INC., Defendants-Appellants,

MYLAN INC. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants.

2012-1228

SCIELE PHARMA V. LUPIN LTD 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in consolidated case no. 09-CV-0037, Judge Robert B. Kugler.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals (Lupin) move for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Dis- trict of Delaware. Sciele Pharma Inc. et a1. oppose.

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 & Co. 0. 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). To prevail, a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the

merits and the harm factors militate in its favor. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 US. 770, 778 (1987).

Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

APR 1 8 2012

Date

cc: David B. Bassett, Esq.

Douglass C. Hochstetler, Esq.

Mary B. Matterer, Esq.

$24

SCIELE PHARMA V. LUPIN LTD

FOR THE COURT

Isl Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly

Clerk

FILED . . F APPEALS FOR U

HOBBALY JANELEBK