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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

The Compak Companies, LLC. v. Johnson, No. 11-1457 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2012)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-1457
Decided
March 28, 2012
Judge
See opinion
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

THE COMPAK COMPANIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv.

JIMMIE L. JOHNSON, RON BOWEN,

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

PATPAK, INC., OLMARC PACKAGING COMPANY,

AND URBAN MINISTRIES, INC.,

Defendants,

AND .

BRUCE CARLSON, DUOTECH HOLDINGS, INC.,

AND DUOTECH PACKAGING, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

2011-1457

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in case no. 03-CV-7427, Senior Judge John F. Grady.

THE COMPAK COMPANIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2COMPAK CO v. JOHNSON 2

Vv.

JIMMIE L. JOHNSON, RON BOWEN,

PATPAK, INC., OLMARC PACKAGING COMPANY,

AND URBAN MINISTRIES, INC.,

Defendants,

AND

BRUCE CARLSON, DUOTECH HOLDINGS, INC.,

AND DUOTECH PACKAGING, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

2011-1483

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in case no. 03-CV-7427, Senior Judge John F. Grady. .

ON MOTION

ORDER

On February 29, 2012, this court issued an order rejecting The Compak Companies, LLC’s brief and stating, inter alia, that “Compak shall file a corrected version of its initial brief... within 21 days of the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of Compak’s appeal for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(2).”. Accordingly Compak’s brief was due on or before March 21, 2012. Compak missed this deadline by one day, serving its brief on March 22, 2012.

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 COMPAK CO v. JOHNSON

Compak’s untimely filing constitutes a failure to comply with the court’s order. Pursuant to that order, Compak’s appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) Appeal no. 2011-1457 is dismissed. The revised caption in 2011-1483 is reflected above.

(2) The initial brief for Bruce Carlson, DuoTech Holdings, Inc., and DuoTech Packaging, LLC, in 2011-1483 is due on or before May 14, 2012.

(3) All sides shall bear their own costs in 2011-1457.

For THE Court MAR 28 2012

/s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: George J. Spathis, Esq.

Andrew J. Cohen, Esq.

823 Issued As a Mandate (as to 2011-1457 only); MAR 28 2012

FILED

.$. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 0 Sa FEDEQAL CIRCUIT

MAR 28 2012

NHORBALY " CLERK

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

The Compak Companies, LLC. v. Johnson, No. 11-1457 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-11-1457-20120328
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1457-20120328

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.