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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Orion IP, LLC. v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 12-1432 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2012)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1432
Decided
September 20, 2012
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. muiteb ~tate5 qcourt of ~peaI5

for tbe jfeberaI qcircuit

ORION IP, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Movant-Appellant.

2012-1432

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 05-CV-0322, Chief Judge Leonard Davis. Before BRYSON, MOORE and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States Dis trict Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene. The court considers whether to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2ORION IP, LLC v. HYUNDAl MOTOR AMERICA 2

On May 10, 2010, the district court denied the appel lant's motion to intervene in this patent infringement case, noting that "Riches present[s] no evidence or reason ing for why [he has] an interest in this closed case." The court further enjoined Riches "from submitting for filing any document(s), pleading(s), or letter(s) ... in any case to which Jonathan Lee Riches is not a named party" absent specific additional submissions. The court received Riches's notice of appeal on June 4, 2012, more than 2 years after the denial of his motion to intervene.

To challenge the district court's order denying his mo tion for leave to intervene, the appellant should have filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of that order. See Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors In Action, 480 U.S. 370, 377 (1987) (explaining that an order denying a motion for leave to intervene is subject to immediate review); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ("[T]he notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from."). Because this appeal was filed outside the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

SEP 20 2012

/s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Jonathan Lee Riches

Andrew W. Spangler, Esq.

U.~~~~t&.rf°R

a SEP 2 2012
Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 ORION IP, LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.

s25

SEP 20 2012

Issued As A Mandate:

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

Orion IP, LLC. v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 12-1432 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1432-20120920
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1432-20120920

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.