Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01061/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01061-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1061 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: DENYING PLAINTIFF

AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS

INC.’S MOTION FOR

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

vs.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Amylin) motion for

injunction pending appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) allows a court to issue an injunction

pending appeal of an order or final judgment that “grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction.” “Like

any injunction, an injunction pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted

sparingly.” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). The standard for an injunction pending appeal is the same as

for a preliminary injunction; the plaintiff must show that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 1207 (citing Winter v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).

//

//

//

Case 3:11-cv-01061-JLS-NLS Document 51 Filed 06/09/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order denying Amylin’s motion for preliminary

injunction, the Court concludes that Amylin has failed to establish that it is likely to suffer irreparable

harm in the absence of preliminary relief. (Order, June 8, 2011, ECF No. 44; see, e.g., Addanki Decl.

¶ 34, ECF No. 11-3.) Accordingly, Amylin’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 9, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01061-JLS-NLS Document 51 Filed 06/09/11 Page 2 of 2