Case Name: CELSIS IN VITRO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLZDIRECT, INC. and Invitrogen Corporation, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-01
Citations: 428 F. App'x 987
Docket Number: No. 2011-1337
Parties: CELSIS IN VITRO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLZDIRECT, INC. and Invitrogen Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 987–987

Head Matter:
CELSIS IN VITRO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLZDIRECT, INC. and Invitrogen Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 2011-1337.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
July 1, 2011.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
ORDER
RADER, Chief Judge.
Celsis in Vitro, Inc. moves for an injunction pending disposition of this appeal. CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corporation oppose. Celsis replies.
Rule 8(a)(l)(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes this court to grant an injunction pending appeal. Similar to a motion to stay a judgment or injunction pending appeal, which is authorized under the same rule, our determination is governed by four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (1) whether the stay applicant had made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent relief; (3) whether issuance of the order will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).
Based on the arguments in the motions papers, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this ease by a merits panel, we determine that Celsis has not met its burden.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
The motion is denied.