Court Opinion

ID: 2671214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-24 18:08:28.021978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:50.160030
License: Public Domain

Case: 13-1672        Document: 32           Page: 1       Filed: 04/24/2014

             NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                      ______________________

                       SYNBIAS PHARMA,
                        Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                      v.

                    SOLUX CORPORATION,
                      Defendant-Appellant.
                     ______________________

                            2013-1672
                      ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of California in No. 3:11-cv-03035-H-
 BGS, Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                       SYNBIAS PHARMA,
                        Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                      v.

                    SOLUX CORPORATION,
                       Defendant-Appellee.
                     ______________________

                            2014-1287
                      ______________________
Case: 13-1672       Document: 32   Page: 2    Filed: 04/24/2014

 2                      SYNBIAS PHARMA   v. SOLUX CORPORATION

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of California in No. 3:11-cv-03035-H-
 BGS, Judge Marilyn L. Huff.
                 ______________________

                        ON MOTION
                    ______________________

                          ORDER
      Solux Corporation moves to voluntarily dismiss Ap-
 peal No. 2013-1672. Synbias Pharma responds. Synbias
 moves without opposition for an extension of time to file
 its opening brief in Appeal No. 14-1287 by June 4, 2014.
      Solux requests that its appeal be dismissed “neither
 with nor without prejudice.” The court generally does not
 indicate whether an appeal is dismissed with or without
 prejudice. Instead, it is the court’s practice to simply
 “dismiss” when an appellant seeks to voluntarily dismiss
 its appeal.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion to dismiss is granted.         Appeal No.
 2013-1672 is dismissed.
    (2) Each party shall bear its own costs in Appeal No.
 2013-1672.
    (3) The revised official caption for Appeal No. 2014-
 1287 is reflected above.
    (4) The motion for extension of time is granted.
 Synbias’s opening brief in Appeal No. 2014-1287 shall be
 due by June 4, 2014.
Case: 13-1672   Document: 32     Page: 3   Filed: 04/24/2014

  SYNBIAS PHARMA   v. SOLUX CORPORATION                     3

                                    FOR THE COURT

                                    /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
                                    Daniel E. O’Toole
                                    Clerk of Court

 ISSUED AS A MANDATE (As To 13-1672 Only):
 April 24, 2014

 s30