Ctd Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CTD NETWORKS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2429
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-cv-01049-XR, Judge
Xavier Rodriguez.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
D YK, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
This appeal arises out of the district court’s final judg-
ment dismissing CTD Networks, LLC’s infringement
claims against Microsoft Corporation. CTD now moves to
withdraw William P. Ramey of Ramey LLP and to substi-
tute Erik N. Lund of Whitestone Law as counsel in this
Case: 23-2429 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 05/24/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

CTD NETWORKS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2
appeal. ECF No. 23. The parties separately submit a “stip-
ulated agreement for voluntary dismissal” pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) with each side
to bear its own costs and attorney fees for this appeal. ECF
No. 25. Ramey LLP, as “[f]ormer [c]ounsel for Appellant,”
moves to “maintain this appeal on the Court’s docket.”
ECF No. 26 at 4. Microsoft opposes.
We grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss. While
Ramey LLP opposes dismissal to protect its own interests
against potential liability that could arise out of a sanctions
motion pending before the district court, we have been
shown no basis for allowing Ramey LLP to appeal when it
is not a party and has not been sanctioned or otherwise the
direct subject of a court order. See Nisus Corp. v. Perma-
Chink Sys., Inc., 497 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
United States v. Carter, 995 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir.
2021) (noting that “attorneys have standing to appeal only
when . . . they are specific objects of the challenged order”
(cleaned up)).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion to withdraw and substitute counsel,
ECF No. 23, is granted. Mr. Lund’s amended entry of ap-
pearance, ECF No. 24, is accepted for filing.
(2) The appeal is dismissed, and all remaining motions
are denied.
Case: 23-2429 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 05/24/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

CTD NETWORKS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
May 24, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 23-2429 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 05/24/2024

-- 3 of 3 --