SHILEY, INC., APPELLEE,
v.
BENTLEY LABORATORIES, INC., APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court's denial of a stay of a post-trial injunction pending appeal on the merits.
Bentley Laboratories appealed the district court's denial of its motion for a stay of an injunction pending appeal. The district court had enjoined Be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of Courts Of Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER *
Bentley Laboratories (Bentley) appeals from a denial by the United States District Court, 621 F.Supp. 105, for the Central District of California of its motion for a stay of an injunction pending an appeal on the merits. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over such an attempted appeal.
In this patent infringement action, the district court enjoined Bentley from infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 4,065,264 and 4,138,288 owned by Shiley, Inc. 601 F.Supp. 964, 225 USPQ 1013 (C.D.Cal.1985). Bentley’s motion for a stay of the injunction pending an appeal on the merits was denied by the district court, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c), and by this court, see Fed.R.App.P. 8(a). Bentley appeals the district court’s denial of the stay of the injunction.
This court raises sua sponte the issue as to its jurisdiction to entertain this purported appeal. See Parker Bros. v. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. 757 F. 2d 254, 226 U.S.P.Q. 11 (Fed.Cir.1985). We hold that a denial of a stay of a post-trial injunction pending an appeal on the merits is neither a “final decision,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (1982), nor within this court’s jurisdiction over interlocutory orders as delineated in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c).
The proper procedure for seeking a stay of a post-trial injunction from this court after a district court’s denial of a motion for the same is set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 8(a). Bentley has exhausted that procedure. It may not now seek the same remedy under the guise of an appeal, the motion to expedite Appeal No. 85-2066 ' having been improvidently granted in this court’s order of June 5, 1985, in which this court considered and denied Bentley’s motion under Fed.R.App.P. 8(a) on its merits.
It is therefore ORDERED
1) that the appeal be dismissed.
*
This Order was issued in unpublished form on September 10, 1985 and amended on November 1, 1985. It is reissued for publication in response to a motion filed by Bentley Laboratories, Inc.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ballard Med. Prods. v. Wright, 823 F.2d 527 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
-
Tylo Sauna, S.A. v. Amerec Corp., 826 F.2d 7 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Authorities Cited
- Parker Bros. v. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc., 757 F.2d 254 (Fed. Cir. 1985)