Case Name: AUTHENEX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee; Authenex, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMC Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-07
Citations: 425 F. App'x 901
Docket Number: Nos. 2011-1264, 2011-1398
Parties: AUTHENEX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Authenex, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMC Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 901–902

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 judg ment 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.