Integrated Technology Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMay 29, 2013
Docket12-1593
StatusUnpublished

This text of Integrated Technology Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc. (Integrated Technology Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook
Integrated Technology Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Opinion

Case: 12-1593 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 05/29/2013

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND NEVADA INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND MARINER ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC, Defendants-Appellants. __________________________

2012-1593, -1618 __________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in No. 06-CV-2182, Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND NEVADA INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND MARINER ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Case: 12-1593 Document: 70 Page: 2 Filed: 05/29/2013

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. RUDOLPH 2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

__________________________

2012-1665 __________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in No. 06-CV-2182, Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver. __________________________

ON MOTION __________________________

ORDER

Integrated Technology Corporation and Nevada Integrated Technology Corporation move without opposition to withdraw their cross-appeal, No. 2012-1665.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to withdraw 2012-1665 is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2012-1665.

(3) The revised official caption for 2012-1593, -1618 is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Case: 12-1593 Document: 70 Page: 3 Filed: 05/29/2013

s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (As To 2012-1665 Only): May 29, 2013

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Integrated Technology Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/integrated-technology-corp-v-rudolph-technologies-inc-cafc-2013.