throbber
Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`
`Opinion in Chambers
`
`1
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
`
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
`
`
` that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`_________________
`No. 13A1003 (13–854)
`_________________
` TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.
`
` v. SANDOZ, INC., ET AL.
`ON APPLICATION TO RECALL AND STAY MANDATE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[April 18, 2014]
`CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, Circuit Justice.
`The application to recall and stay the mandate of the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, see
`723 F. 3d 1363 (2013), is denied. To obtain such relief,
`
`applicant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., must demon-
`strate (1) a “reasonable probability” that this Court will
`grant certiorari, (2) a “fair prospect” that the Court will
`reverse the decision below, and (3) a “likelihood that ir-
`reparable harm [will] result from the denial of a stay.”
`Maryland v. King, 567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (ROBERTS, C.
`J., in chambers) (slip op., at 1) (internal quotation marks
`omitted). Teva has of course satisfied the first require-
`ment, and has also shown a fair prospect of success on the
`merits. I am not convinced, however, that it has shown a
`
`likelihood of irreparable harm from denial of a stay.
`
`Respondents acknowledge that, should Teva prevail in
`this Court and its patent be held valid, Teva will be able to
`recover damages from respondents for past patent in-
`fringement. See Brief in Opposition 25–28. Given the
`availability of that remedy, the extraordinary relief that
`Teva seeks is unwarranted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is so ordered.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.