U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1986

Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided January 24, 1986 · Markey, Cowen, Baldwin

782 F.2d 992; 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 543; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 219; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 19988 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Roy E. Hofer, Gary M. Ropski and Mark J. Buonaiuto, William Brinks, Olds, Hofer, Gilson & Lione, Ltd., Chicago, 111., submitted for appellant., John E. Kidd, Gidon D. Stem, Stephen J. Harbulak, Pennie & Edmonds, New York City, and Joseph V. Colaianni, Pennie & Edmonds, Washington, D.C., submitted for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Ufcw Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp. (10th Cir. 2008)
Ballard Medical Products v. H. Earl Wright, Defendant/cross-Appellant (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Tylo Sauna, S.A. v. Amerec Corporation (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Power Integrations, Inc v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Power Integrations, Inc v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009)
LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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 *993 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.