E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Phillips 66 Company, and Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that courts should “assess [a] movant’s chances for success on appeal and weigh the equities as they affect the parties and the public” when evaluating whether to grant a stay pending appeal
• finding that an appellant showed it was sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal where “there [was] a conflict between the PTO Examiner’s rejection of DuPont’s claims as invalid in view of prior art and the district court’s ruling of validity”
• granting motion to stay upon a movant's establishing both that there were substantial legal issues and that the balance of harms and the public interest weighed in its favor
• granting a motion for a stay “[i]n view of the substantial legal issues presented on appeal, the harm to [the moving party], the harm to the public, and the comparative lack of harm to [the non-moving party]”
• injunction stayed because patentee had previously licensed patent and was divesting business unit that had been practicing the invention
• “In considering whether to issue a stay [of an injunction] pending appeal, [the] court assesses movant’s chances for success on appeal and weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).