NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit
______________________

ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC., MYLAN

PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
Defendants-Cross-Appellants
______________________

2017-2078, 2017-2134
______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware in Nos. 1:14-cv-00882-LPS, 1:14-cv-
00922-LPS, 1:14-cv-00935-LPS, 1:14-cv-00941-LPS, Chief
Judge Leonard P. Stark.
______________________

ON MOTION
______________________

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.
ORDER
2 ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., moves

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) and
Federal Circuit Rule 8 for an injunction pending appeal.
Specifically, Acorda seeks to enjoin Defendants-Cross-
Appellants Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceu-
ticals Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., from
launching generic versions of Acorda’s brand-name drug
Ampyra® before this court’s disposition of the above-
captioned appeals on the merits. Defendants-Cross-
Appellants filed a response in opposition to that motion,
and Acorda filed a reply.
Acorda filed its motion for an injunction pending ap-
peal on May 23, 2018, after full briefing on the merits of
the appeals. This court heard argument on the merits of
the appeals on June 7, 2018. On July 23, 2018, Acorda
notified the court that “Acorda plans to seek an emergen-
cy injunction on July 25, [2018,] absent a change in cir-
cumstances.” Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs.,
Inc., Nos. 17-2078, -2134 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2018), ECF
No. 136.
This court evaluates the motion for an injunction
pending appeal based on: (1) whether Acorda has made a
strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether Acorda will be irreparably injured absent an
injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction 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).
Based on the papers submitted and the argument
held in June 2018, the court concludes that Acorda has
not established that an injunction pending appeal is
warranted.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is denied.
ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC. 3

FOR THE COURT

_July 25, 2018_ _/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner_

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court