Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0901-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AUTHENEX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Authenex, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMC Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 2011-1264, 2011-1398.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    July 7, 2011.
    Jeremy S. Pitcock, Pitcock Law Group, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Chris R. Ottenweller, Orrick, Herring-ton & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Authenex, Inc. responds to this court’s order directing it to show cause why its appeal in 2011-1264 should not be dismissed as premature.

Appeal 2011-1264 was filed after the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement but before the district court entered a final judgment or ruled on pending counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity. Authenex states that the district court recently filed a final judgment resolving all claims in the case and Authenex filed another appeal, 2011-1398, seeking review of the final judgment.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) Appeal 2011-1264 is dismissed as premature.

(2) Authenex’s opening brief in 2011-1398 is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.