# Ctd Networks, LLC v. Google LLC

> Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · May 24, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9973618

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- **Decided:** May 24, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9973618

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “attorneys have standing to appeal only when . . . they are specific objects of the challenged order” (cleaned up)

## Opinion text

Case: 23-2428 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 05/24/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

CTD NETWORKS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________

2023-2428
______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-cv-01042-XR, Judge
Xavier Rodriguez.
______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
This appeal arises out of the district court’s final judg-
ment dismissing CTD Networks, LLC’s infringement
claims against Google LLC. In December 2023, William P.
Ramey and Ramey LLP (collectively, “Ramey”) moved to
withdraw as counsel for CTD. On February 2, 2024, this
court ordered that Ramey’s motion would be granted if new
Case: 23-2428 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 05/24/2024

2 CTD NETWORKS, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

counsel filed an entry of appearance on behalf of CTD, ECF
No. 26. But no entry of appearance has been entered. 1
Having considered the motion and the status reports,
we dismiss. Ramey has informed the court that “CTD has
abandoned the appeal.” ECF No. 27 at 6. While Ramey
opposes dismissal to protect its own interests against po-
tential liability that could arise out of a sanctions motion
pending before the district court, we have been shown no
basis for allowing Ramey 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,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT

May 24, 2024
Date

1 Whitestone Law, which filed a notice of appearance
at the district court on behalf of CTD, has indicated it will
not enter an appearance in this appeal. ECF No. 29.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9973618. Public record. Not legal advice.