Case Name: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. and Communications Patents, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UA-COLUMBIA CABLEVISION OF WESTCHESTER, INC. and Telecommunications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees; Intellectual Property Development, Inc. and Communications Patents, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UA-Columbia Cablevision Of Westchester, Inc. and Telecommunications, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-19
Citations: 54 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: Nos. 01-1248, 02-1249
Parties: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. and Communications Patents, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UA-COLUMBIA CABLEVISION OF WESTCHESTER, INC. and Telecommunications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Intellectual Property Development, Inc. and Communications Patents, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UA-Columbia Cablevision Of Westchester, Inc. and Telecommunications, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. and Communications Patents, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UA-COLUMBIA CABLEVISION OF WESTCHESTER, INC. and Telecommunications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Intellectual Property Development, Inc. and Communications Patents, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UA-Columbia Cablevision Of Westchester, Inc. and Telecommunications, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 01-1248, 02-1249.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Dec. 19, 2002.

Opinion:
ORDER
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc. and Tele-Communications, Inc. (UA-Columbia) inform the court that their appeal 02-1249 is moot. We treat the submission as a motion to voluntarily dismiss 02-1249.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to voluntarily dismiss 02-1249 is granted.
(2) The revised official caption for 02-1248 is reflected above.
(3) A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear this case.
It is unclear whether UA-Columbia intends part of its letter to be a citation of supplemental authority under Fed. R.App. P. 28(j) (amended Dec. 1, 2002). If so, UA-Columbia should provide the clerk with another letter clearly marked as a Rule 28(j) motion.