Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Hoang v. Abbott Labs, No. 10-1061 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2010)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1061
Decided
May 3, 2010
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2010-1061

DIEP X. HOANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., KATHERINE GREEN,

KENNETH A. WILSON, MAURIZO ACQUASALIENTE,

STEPHEN MONTGOMERY, ZHENKUN MA, LY TAM PHAN,

SUOMING ZHANG, STEVAN W. DJURIC, YAT SUN OR,

and SANJAY CHEMBURKAR,

Defendant-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in case

no. 08-CV-0189, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

ON MOTION

Before MAYER, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Diep X. Hoang moves for an extension of time to file a brief. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al. oppose and move to dismiss this appeal.

On December 17, 2009, this court granted Hoang’s motion for an extension of time, giving her until February 12, 2010 to file her brief. The court's order noted that Hoang should not anticipate further extensions. On March 1, 2010, the court granted Hoang’s motion for an additional 30-day extension. The court’s order noted that “[njo further extensions will be granted.” Nevertheless, Hoang has not yet filed her brief and yet again asks for additional time to file her opening brief.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2This court meant what it said in its order that “no further extensions will be granted.” Hoang did not file a brief on the court-ordered due date and her appeal must be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F.2d 1572, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (‘failure to comply with this court's rules, including the requirements for preparing and filing briefs, appendices and other papers, may result in dismissal of an appefaorl failure to prosecute’).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) | The motion for an extension of time is denied. (2) The motion to dismiss is granted. . (3) | Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAY 03 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Diep X. Hoang

James F. Hurst, Esq.

si9 FILED ISSUED AS AMANDATE: _ MAY 03 2010 Us coum Sepang OR

MAY 03 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

2010-1061

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Hoang v. Abbott Labs, No. 10-1061 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1061-20100503
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1061-20100503

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.