NOTE: ThiS order is n0np1'0ccdcntiz1l. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMENT CORPORATION AND MICHAEL H. BRANIGIN, Plain,t£ffs-Appella)1tS, V. BUG LABS, INC., Defen,danL-AppeHee_ 2010-1474 Appea] from the United St,a_te:-1 DiST.1“ict C0u1‘t. for the Cent1“al DiSt1‘ict. of Ca1if01‘nia in case 1'10. ()9-CV-06U7, Judge SLephen V_ Wi1s0n_ MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMENT CORPORATION AND MICHAEL H. BRANIGIN, Plc;r,intiffs-Appellan.ts, V. EMULEX CORPORATION, DefemlU mi-App€llee. 2()1()-1475

MICROPROCESSOR V. BUG LABS 2 Appea1 from the United StateS DiStrict C0urt for the Centra1 District of California in case no. 09-CV-0605, Judge Stephen V. Wi1Son. MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMEN'I` CORPORATION AND MICHAEL H. BRANIGIN, Plocintiffs-Appellants, V. ' TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED~, Defen,dant-Appellee, and ARM LTD., Defendcmt-Appellee. __ 2010-1476 Appeal from the United States DiStrict Court for the Central DiStrict of Calif0rnia in case n0. 08-CV-1123, Judge Stephen V. Wi1S0n. MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMENT CORPORATION AND MICHAEL H. BRANIGIN, Plar,`ntiffs-Appellcmts, V. MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, '

3 MICROPROCESSOR V. BUG LABS and ARM LTD., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1477 Appea1 from the United StateS District Cou1't for the Central District of Ca1if0rnia in case n0. 09-CV-06()3, Judge Stephen V. Wi1son. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . . ¢ » ¢ _ ¢ _ » ¢ _ - _ ¢ - - _ - » ¢ _ - _ ¢ » ¢ » ¢ » - _ ¢ _ ¢ _ - _ - ~ - ~ - _ _ _ -ui-___---~-____ MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMENT CORPORATION AND MICHAEL H. BRANIGIN, Plain,tiffs-Appellan.ts, V. '~ ARCHOS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1479 Appea1 from the United States DiStrict Court for the Centra1 District of Ca1if0rnia in case n0. 09-CV-06U6, Judge Stephen V. Wi1S0n. MICROPROCESSOR ENHANCEMENT CORPORATION AND MICHAEL BRANIGIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, V.

MICROPROCESSOR V. BUG LABS 4 STMICROELECTRONTCS NV AND STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and ARM LTD., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1484 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 08-CV-1039, Judge Stephen V. Wilson. ON MOTION 1 , ORDER The appellants move to consolidate the above- captioned appeals and to issue a briefing schedule. Upon consideration thereof, IT ls ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions are granted. The revised official cap- tion is reflected above. (2) The appellants opening brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this 0rder. The appellees should calculate their brief due dates from the date of service of the appel1ants' opening brief. Appe1lees repre- sented by the same counsel or law firm may only file a combined appellees' brief for those cases. Any appellee that appears in more than one case may only file a com- bined appellees brief for those cases. The appellant

5 MICROPROCESSOR V. BUG LABS should calculate the due date for its combined consoli- dated reply brief from the latter day of service of any appellee's brief. FoR THE CoURT DEC 1 3 2010 Date lsi J an Horbaly J an Horbaly Clerk Roderick G. Dorman, Esq. Blaney Harper, Esq. Bruce S. Sostek, Esq. Joseph E. Thomas, Esq. Kevin P. Anderson, Esq. Gary N. Frischling, Esq. Chad S. Campbell, Esq. s8 CCZ U.S. COURE£?!5EPPEALS FOR THE F RAL C|RCU|T 1353 13 2010 .IAN ll`JRBALV 1 CLERK