The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
2012-1172•Apeldyn Corporation v. Au Optronics Corporation and Au Optronics Corporation America
2012-1172Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitJul 6, 2012
<!-- PageHeader="NOTE: This order is nonprecedential." -->
# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
APELDYN CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.
2012-1172
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in case no. 08-CV-0568, Judge Sue L.
Robinson.
<!-- PageBreak -->
<!-- PageHeader="APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS" -->
## APELDYN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
AND
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.
2012-1173
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in case no. 08-CV-0568, Judge Sue L.
Robinson.
ON MOTION
## ORDER
Apeldyn Corporation ("Apeldyn") moves, unopposed,
for an extension of time. Specifically, Apeldyn requests
that its deadline to designate materials for the appendix
and to file its statement of issues be extended to August 6,
2012; that its deadline to file its certificate of compliance
<!-- PageBreak -->
<!-- PageHeader="APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS" -->
with Federal Circuit Rule 11(d) be extended to Septem-
ber 7, 2012; and that its deadline to file its opening brief
be extended to September 21, 2012. Apeldyn also moves
to withdraw its appeal from the district court order dis-
qualifying McKenna Long & Aldridge ("McKenna Long")
from representing Apeldyn against Samsung, appeal
2012-1173. McKenna Long moves to withdraw as counsel
for Apeldyn.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Apeldyn's motion for an extension of time is
granted.
(2) Apeldyn's motion to withdraw appeal 2012-1173 is
granted. Appeal 2012-1173 is dismissed. Each side shall
bear its own costs in 2012-1173. The revised official
caption in 2012-1172 is reflected above.
(3) McKenna Long's motion to withdraw as counsel for
Apeldyn is granted.
(4) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
FOR THE COURT
JUL 06 2012
/s/ Jan Horbaly
Date
Jan Horbaly Clerk
cc: Gaspare J. Bono, Esq.
Don H. Marmaduke, Esq.
Terrence Duane Garnett, Esq.
Donald R. McPhail, Esq.
Neil Phillip Sirota, Esq.
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JUL 0 6 2012
JAN HORBALY
CLERK
<!-- PageBreak -->
<!-- PageHeader="APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS" -->
s25
ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to 2012-1173 only): JUL 0 6 2012
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.