Parallel Technology, LLC v. 3COM CORPORATION
This text of 988 A.2d 938 (Parallel Technology, LLC v. 3COM CORPORATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
PARALLEL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff Below, Appellant,
v.
3COM CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
CAROLYN BERGER, Justice.
This 18th day of February 2010, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff/appellant, Parallel Technology, LLC ("Parallel"), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 ("Rule 42"), to appeal from the Court of Chancery's January 19, 2010 denial of Parallel's motions for a temporary restraining order and for expedited proceedings. By order dated February 12, 2010, the Court of Chancery denied Parallel's application for certification on the basis that the interlocutory appeal would be futile.
(2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. We have examined the Court of Chancery's January 19, 2010 ruling according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42 and have concluded that exceptional circumstances as would merit review of the ruling do not exist in this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
988 A.2d 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parallel-technology-llc-v-3com-corporation-del-2010.