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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

CTD Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 23-2429 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2024)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-2429
Decided
May 24, 2024
Judge
Dyk, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CTD NETWORKS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

2023-2429

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-cv-01049-XR, Judge Xavier Rodriguez.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

This appeal arises out of the district court’s final judgment dismissing CTD Networks, LLC’s infringement claims against Microsoft Corporation. CTD now moves to withdraw William P. Ramey of Ramey LLP and to substitute Erik N. Lund of Whitestone Law as counsel in this2 appeal. ECF No. 23. The parties separately submit a “stipulated agreement for voluntary dismissal” pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) with each side to bear its own costs and attorney fees for this appeal. ECF No. 25. Ramey LLP, as “[f]ormer [c]ounsel for Appellant,” moves to “maintain this appeal on the Court’s docket.” ECF No. 26 at 4. Microsoft opposes. We grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss. While Ramey LLP opposes dismissal to protect its own interests against potential liability that could arise out of a sanctions motion pending before the district court, we have been shown no basis for allowing Ramey LLP to appeal when it is not a party and has not been sanctioned or otherwise the direct subject of a court order. See Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Sys., Inc., 497 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007); United States v. Carter, 995 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting that “attorneys have standing to appeal only when . . . they are specific objects of the challenged order” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to withdraw and substitute counsel, ECF No. 23, is granted. Mr. Lund’s amended entry of appearance, ECF No. 24, is accepted for filing. (2) The appeal is dismissed, and all remaining motions are denied.

3(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

May 24, 2024 Date

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

CTD Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 23-2429 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-23-2429-20240524
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-2429-20240524

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.