`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`CITY OF HOPE,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`IMMUNEX RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION,
`AMGEN INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees
`______________________
`
`2019-2155
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-00602-CFC, Judge
`Colm F. Connolly.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before WALLACH, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2155 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2019
`
`
`2
`
`GENENTECH, INC. v. IMMUNEX RHODE ISLAND CORP.
`
` Genentech, Inc. moves for an injunction pending
`appeal. Appellees oppose. Genentech also moves to
`exceed the confidential marking limits for its reply in
`support of that motion.
`Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Proce-
`dure authorizes this court to grant an injunction pending
`appeal. Similar to a motion for a stay, our determination
`is governed by four factors: (1) whether the movant has
`made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the
`merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured
`absent an injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunc-
`tion will substantially injure the other parties interested
`in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
`Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Without
`prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case, we
`conclude that Genentech has not established that an
`injunction pending appeal is warranted here under these
`factors.
`
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The motion for an injunction pending appeal is
`
`denied.
`
`(2) ECF No. 32 is granted. The reply is accepted for
`filing.
`
`
`
` August 16, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
` Peter R. Marksteiner
`
` Clerk of Court
`s35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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.
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.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
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
