Case Name: ePLUS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-14
Citations: 431 F. App'x 920
Docket Number: No. 2011-1396
Parties: ePLUS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 920–920

Head Matter:
ePLUS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2011-1396.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
July 14, 2011.
David M. Young, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald R. Dunner, Kara F. Stoll, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Washington, DC, Erika H. Arner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Reston, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
ORDER
PROST, Circuit Judge.
Lawson Software, Inc. submits a motion for a stay, pending appeal, of the permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 23, 2011. ePlus Inc. opposes. Lawson replies.
The power to stay an injunction pending appeal is part of a court's '"traditional equipment for the administration of justice.' " Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1757, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009) (citing Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 9-10, 62 S.Ct. 875, 86 L.Ed. 1229 (1942)). A stay, however, is not a matter of right hut instead an exercise of judicial discretion. Nken, 129 S.Ct. at 1761. The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exex-cise of that discretion based on consideration of four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other pax*ties intex-ested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public intex-est lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).
Without px'ejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a mex-its panel, we conclude based upon the papex-s submitted that Lawson has not made a sufficient showing to obtain a stay of the district court's injunction pending appeal.
Upon consideration thex-eof,
It Is Ordered That:
The motion is denied.