Court Opinion

ID: 206869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-13 06:48:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:52.574433
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
United States Court of AppeaIs
for the FederaI Circuit
\
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. and
KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC,
Plain,tiffs-Appellees,
V.
FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS, LLC and
FIRST QUALITY RETAIL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants-Appell<.mts.
2010-1382
Appeal from the United States DiStrict C0urt for the
Eastern District of Wisc0nsin in case n0. 09-CV-0916,
Judge William C. GrieSbach.
ON MOTION
Before RADER, Chief Ju,dge, BRYs0N and MO0RE, C1Lrcuit
Judges.
RADER, Chief Ju,dge.
0 R D E R
First Qua1ity Baby Pr0ducts, LLC, and First Quality
Retail Services, LLC, collectively "First Quality,” move for

KIM`BERLY-CLARK V. FIRST QUALITY 2
a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wiscon-
sin. Kimberly-C1ark Wor1dWide, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark
Global Sales, LLC, collectively "Kimberly-Clark," oppose.
Kimberly-Clark sued First Qua]ity for infringement of
a number of product and process patents relating to
refastenable pants. Kimberly-Clark successfully moved
for a` preliminary injunction on four process patents
covering aspects of refastenable-pant manufacture. First
Quality moves to stay that injunction pending appeal.
To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a movant must es-
tablish 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. Brau,n,skill,' 481 U.S. 770, 778 (1987).
ln 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 pub1ic." E.I. du Pont de Nem,ours & Co. u. Phil»
lips Petroleurn C'o., 835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
See also StancZard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 897
F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Based on the motions papers submitted, and without
prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this appeal by a
merits panel, we determine that First Quality has not met
its burden to obtain a stay of the preliminary injunction.
Accordingly,
IT ls ORDERED THAT:
The motion is denied.
FoR THE CoURT
AUG --2 2010
fs/ J an Horbaly
Date J an Horbaly
Clerk
. FOR
"~assadSt.i9:"L ma
AUG 052 2010
lAN HORBAlX
CLERK

=
*
3
KIMBERLY~CLARK V. FlRST QUALITY
cc: Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Esq.
S
Kenneth P. George, Esq.