`
`
`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.