Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
written étatefi QEnurt of Qppealz
for the jfetuzral QEirmit
SCIELE PHARMA INC. (NOW KNOWN AS
SHIONOGI PHARMA INC.), ‘
Plaintiff-Appellee,
AND
ANDRX CORPORATION, ANDRX
PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS
WATSON LABORATORIES INC. ~— FLORIDA),
ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS L.L.C., ANDRX
LABORATORIES (NJ) INC., ANDRX EU LTD., AND
ANDRX LABS L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS
INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
AND
MYLAN INC. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
INC.,
Defendants.
2012-1228
SCIELE PHARMA V. LUPIN LTD 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in consolidated case no. 09-CV-0037,
Judge Robert B. Kugler.
ON MOTION
Before LOURIE, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals (Lupin) move
for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction
entered by the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Delaware. Sciele Pharma Inc. et a1. oppose.
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. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 0. 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). To prevail, a movant must establish a
strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that,
must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the
merits and the harm factors militate in its favor. Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 US. 770, 778 (1987).
Upon consideration thereof,
IT Is ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted.
APR 1 8 2012
Date
cc: David B. Bassett, Esq.
Douglass C. Hochstetler, Esq.
Mary B. Matterer, Esq.
$24
SCIELE PHARMA V. LUPIN LTD
FOR THE COURT
Isl Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
FILED
. . F APPEALS FOR
U
APR 1 8 2012
HOBBALY
JANELEBK