Case Name: ASCOM HASLER MAILING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellant; Neopost, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellant; Francotyp-Postalia, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 227 F. App'x 921
Docket Number: Nos. 2007-1233 to 2007-1235
Parties: ASCOM HASLER MAILING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellant. Neopost, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellant. Francotyp-Postalia, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAYER, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 921–922

Head Matter:
ASCOM HASLER MAILING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellant. Neopost, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellant. Francotyp-Postalia, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 2007-1233 to 2007-1235.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 15, 2007.
Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAYER, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the United States Postal Service's unopposed motions to withdraw its appeals and to stay the briefing schedule pending disposition of the motion to withdraw,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motions are granted. The appeals are dismissed.
(2) All other motions are mopt.
(3) All sides shall bear their own costs.
USPS states that withdrawal of the appeals is without prejudice to filing appeals after the district court issues a final determination on its motions to transfer or dismiss. Based upon the papers submitted by the parties, it appears that the district court has not yet decided, on the merits, the jurisdictional issue raised by the motion to transfer.