ARLINGTON IND. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, 425 Fed.Appx. 896 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Nos. 2010-1377, 2010-1400, 2010-1408.United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 23, 2011.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in consolidated case nos. 01-CV-0485 and 05-CV-2622, Christopher C. Conner, Judge.

Kathryn L. Clune, Crowell Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Cross Appellant.

Alan M. Anderson, Briggs Morgan, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

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 ultimate

Page 897

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.