
    KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS, LLC and First Quality Retail Services, LLC, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 2010-1382.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Aug. 2, 2010.
    
      Kenneth P. George, Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Marc S. Cooperman, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, BRYSON and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

ORDER

Rader, Chief Judge.

First Quality Baby Products, LLC, and First Quality Retail Services, LLC, collectively “First Quality,” move for a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, collectively “Kimberly-Clark,” oppose.

Kimberly-Clark sued First Quality for infringement of a number of product and process patents relating to refastenable pants. Kimberly-Clark successfully moved for a preliminary injunction on four process patents covering aspects of refas-tenable-pant manufacture. First Quality moves to stay that injunction pending appeal.

To obtain a stay, pending appeal, a mov-ant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits, or, failing that, nonetheless demonstrate a substantial case on the merits provided that the harm factors militate in its favor. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 778, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987). In deciding whether to grant a stay, 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. Geneor Indus., 897 F.2d 511(Fed.Cir.1990).

Based on the motions papers submitted, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this appeal by a merits panel, we determine that First Quality has not met its burden to obtain a stay of the preliminary injunction.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is denied.  