This inquiry must ‘be searching and careful,’ but ‘the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one.’ ”); see also Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Widnall, 15 F.3d 1044, 1046 (Fed.Cir.1994) (recognizing that “Government agencies are entrusted with a good deal of dis a permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction, except the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits instead of a likelihood of success on the merits. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). In addition, the plaintiff must establish: irreparable harm; the balance of the hardship favors the plaintiff; and a “tolerable effect on the public interest.” Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1219 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (citing Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. J. Baker, Inc.,
holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding that the court must balance these factors against one another and against the extent of the relief sought and movant bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief holding that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that he has standing for each type of relief sought holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees