Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LOURIE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MYTEE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS RESEARCH, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Does 1 Through 20, Defendants.
    Nos. 2010-1207, 2010-1226.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Sept. 16, 2010.
    Before NEWMAN, FRIEDMAN, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

ORDER

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Mytee Products, Inc. moves for a stay of the permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Harris Research, Inc. opposes. Mytee replies.

On September 13, 2006, Mytee Products filed suit against the defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of Harris’ U.S. Patents Nos. 6,298,577 and 6,266,892 (collectively the “Harris Patents”). Subsequent to a jury trial which found the Harris patents valid and infringed, the district court granted Harris’ motion for an injunction permanently enjoining Mytee from making, using, or selling the infringing products. The district court denied Mytee’s motion for a stay of the injunction pending this appeal. Mytee now moves this court for a stay of the permanent injunction.

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 upon the motions papers submitted, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this appeal by a merits panel, we determine that Mytee has not met its burden to obtain a stay of the injunction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied.