The appellants move for a stay, pending appeal, of the permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. SynQor, Inc. opposes. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al., Bel Fuse, Inc., and Cherokee International Corp. et al. reply.

The power to stay an injunction pending appeal is part of a court’s `”traditional equipment for the administration of justice.'” Nken v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1757 (2009) (citing Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 9-10 (1942)). A stay, however, is not a matter of right but instead an exercise of
judicial discretion. Nken, 129 S.Ct at 1761. The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion based on consideration of four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay 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). Read more