Case Name: NIKE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEITAC INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. and Man Lee Mo, Defendants-Appellants, and In Shoe, Inc., Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-19
Citations: 219 F. App'x 998
Docket Number: No. 2007-1070
Parties: NIKE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEITAC INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. and Man Lee Mo, Defendants-Appellants, and In Shoe, Inc., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 998–999

Head Matter:
NIKE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEITAC INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. and Man Lee Mo, Defendants-Appellants, and In Shoe, Inc., Defendant.
No. 2007-1070.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
March 19, 2007.
Ronald Mark St. Marie, Chan Law Group PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Erik S. Maurer, Christopher J. Renk, Michael J. Harris Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
PROST, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Nike, Inc. moves to dismiss this appeal because Meitac International Enterprise Co., Ltd. et al. (Meitac) has failed to file their opening brief. Meitac has not responded.
A party's failure to comply with the court's rules, including the requirements of preparing and filing briefs, can result in dismissal of an appeal for failure to prose cute. Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F.2d 1572, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1989).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted.
(2) All sides shall bear their own costs. FOR THE COURT