Court Opinion

ID: 811193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-11-02 19:04:40+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:05.071427
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

  mnlteb ~tate~ (!Court of ~peaI~
      for tbe jfeberaI 303 F.2d 778,779
(5th Cir. 1962). Eidos presents no position relating to the
substance of the appeal in which its interest is adverse to
Apeldyn's. Its unsupported assertion that its interests
3                              APELDYN CORP   v. AU OPTRONICS
will not be adequately represented by the appellants do
not meet the burden to obtain permission to intervene on
the side of appellants in these circumstances. Moreover,
Eidos's concerns regarding the applicability of its agree-
ment with Apeldyn are before the Oregon district court.

      Upon consideration thereof,

      IT Is ORDERED THAT:

      The motion is denied.

                                    FOR THE COURT

      NOV 022012                     /s/ Jan Horbaly
         Date                       Jan Horbaly
                                    Clerk
cc: Scott G. Seidman, Esq.
    Terrence Duane Garnett, Esq.
    Donald R. McPhail, Esq.
    Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.                        COUftf~~EALS
                                              u.s.THE FEDERAL CIRCUITFOR
s24
                                                   NOV 02 ~Ul~
                                                       JANHORBALY
                                                          ClERK