Ctd Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
This text of Ctd Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (Ctd Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 23-2429 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 05/24/2024
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
CTD NETWORKS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee ______________________
2023-2429 ______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-cv-01049-XR, Judge Xavier Rodriguez. ______________________
ON MOTION ______________________
Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. ORDER This appeal arises out of the district court’s final judg- ment dismissing CTD Networks, LLC’s infringement claims against Microsoft Corporation. CTD now moves to withdraw William P. Ramey of Ramey LLP and to substi- tute Erik N. Lund of Whitestone Law as counsel in this Case: 23-2429 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 05/24/2024
appeal. ECF No. 23. The parties separately submit a “stip- ulated agreement for voluntary dismissal” pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) with each side to bear its own costs and attorney fees for this appeal. ECF No. 25. Ramey LLP, as “[f]ormer [c]ounsel for Appellant,” moves to “maintain this appeal on the Court’s docket.” ECF No. 26 at 4. Microsoft opposes. We grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss. While Ramey LLP opposes dismissal to protect its own interests against potential liability that could arise out of a sanctions motion pending before the district court, we have been shown no basis for allowing Ramey LLP to appeal when it is not a party and has not been sanctioned or otherwise the direct subject of a court order. See Nisus Corp. v. Perma- Chink Sys., Inc., 497 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007); United States v. Carter, 995 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting that “attorneys have standing to appeal only when . . . they are specific objects of the challenged order” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to withdraw and substitute counsel, ECF No. 23, is granted. Mr. Lund’s amended entry of ap- pearance, ECF No. 24, is accepted for filing. (2) The appeal is dismissed, and all remaining motions are denied. Case: 23-2429 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 05/24/2024
CTD NETWORKS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT
May 24, 2024 Date
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ctd Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ctd-networks-llc-v-microsoft-corporation-cafc-2024.