Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
the Court ordered Apple to post a bond in the amount of $95,637,141.60 to secure payment of anydamages sustained by Samsung if it is later found to have been wrongfully enjoined.
On July 1, 2012, Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal of the preliminary injunction order tothe Federal Circuit.
ECF No. 218. Also on July 1, 2012, Samsung filed a Motion to Stay andSuspend the June 29, 2012 Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal or, Alternatively, PendingDecision by Federal Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal (“Motion to Stay”).
ECF No. 219(“Mot.”). Later that day, Apple filed an Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Stay.
ECF No.220 (“Opp’n”). The Court held a hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Stay on July 2, 2012. Havingconsidered the parties’ arguments and the relevant law, the Court hereby DENIES Samsung’sMotion to Stay.
Both the court of appeals and the district court have authority to stay an order pendingreview on appeal, as a function of its “‘traditional equipment for the administration of justice.’”
Nken v. Holder
, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (quoting
Scripps-Howard Radio v. F.C.C.
, 316 U.S. 4,9-10 (1942));
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) (district court); Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) (appellate court).While the district court has the authority to hold an order in abeyance pending review, “[a] stay isan ‘intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review,’ and accordingly ‘isnot a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.’”
, 556U.S. at 427 (quoting
Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n
, 259 F.2d 921, 925(D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam), and
Virginian R. Co. v. United States
, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926),respectively).The standard for determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal is similar to thestandard for issuing a preliminary injunction.
Tribal Vill. of Akutan v. Hodel
, 859 F.2d 662, 663(9th Cir. 1988);
see Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council
, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (laying out four-pronged test for preliminary injunctive relief). For both the appellate court and the district court,
On June 29, 2012, the Court ordered Apple not to post the bond before July 3, 2012, so the partiescould brief a motion to stay, and the Court could hold a hearing on July 2, 2012. At the July 2,2012 hearing, the Court ordered Apple not to post the bond before the Court ruled on Samsung’sMotion to Stay.
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document230 Filed07/03/12 Page2 of 18