PA Advisors, LLC. v. Google, Inc., No. 12-1448 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2012) — Nonprecedential Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. WIntteb $>tate~ QCourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI QCtrcutt

PA ADVISORS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Movant-Appellant.

2012-1448

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 07-CV-0480, Judge David Folsom. Before BRYSON, MOORE and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

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.

2PAADVISORS, LLC v. GOOGLE, INC. 2

This is one of apparently thousands of actions in which Riches has sought to intervene without having any meaningful connection to the case.

On December 30, 2008, the district court denied the appellant's motion to intervene in this patent infringe ment case, noting that the motion failed to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of the case. The district court further observed that "Mr. Riches cdnclusory statements regarding 'Federal Law violations' dmmitted against PA Advisors by Google are unfounded and have no connection to the patent infringement law suit before this Court." The court received the appellant's notice of appeal on June 5, 2012, more than 1000 days 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 clhk 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 THAT:

ORDERED

(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

3³ PAADVISORS, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.

FOR THE COURT

SEP 20 2012

/s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk.

cc: Jonathan Lee Riches

Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq. Jennifer H. Doan, Esq. FILED

u.s.

COURT OF APPEAlS FOR Elizabeth Stoebner Wiley, Esq.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT s25 SEP 202012

SEP 20. 2012

Issued As A Mandate:

JANHORBAlY

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.