
    FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER, Argus Genetics, LLC, and Mars, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BIOPET VET LAB, INC. and Radio Systems Corporation (doing business as Petsafe), Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 2011-1249.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    June 15, 2011.
    Christopher A. Abel, Troutman Sanders LLP, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees.
    Gregory N. Stillman, Brent L. Vannor-man, Hunton & Williams LLP, Norfolk, VA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

BioPet Vet Lab, Inc. et al. (BioPet) move for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center et al. (FHCRC) oppose. BioPet replies.

In deciding whether to grant a stay or injunction, pending appeal, this court “assesses the movant’s chances of success on the merits and weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public.” E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed.Cir. 1987); see also Standard Havens Prods, v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir. 1990). To prevail, a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the merits and that the harms factors militate in its favor. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 778, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).

Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a merits panel, we conclude based upon the papers submitted that BioPet has not met its burden of showing the requisite likelihood of success to obtain a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction is denied.  