NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of A11peaIs for the Federal Circuit INTAMIN, LTD., Plaimfiff-Appellant, V. MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant~Appellee.

2010-1003 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 04-CV-0511, Judge Gary A. Feess.

ON MOTION Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

0 R D E R Inta1nin, Ltd. moves for reconsideration of the court’s June 1, 2010 order dismissing its appeal for failure to file the joint appendix Magnetar Technologies Corp. opposes and requests that, if the court grant Intamin’s 1notion, the court require that Intamin post a bond. Intamin replies INTAMIN V. MAGNETAR 2 The joint appendix was due on May 18, 2010. ln- tamin did not file the appendix or request an extension of time to file the appendix on or before that date, and the court dismissed the appeal on June 1, 2010.

Intamin states that it did not file the appendix on May 18 because it received from Magnetar a list of pages designated for inclusion in the appendix on "[l]ate on May 18." Thus, Intamin states, it prepared a motion for an extension of time to file the appendix. However, counsel for Intan1in states that he was unable to Ele an extension motion promptly due to family illnesses The court will grant Intamin’s motion if Inta1nin submits the appendix within seven days.

Magnetar requests a bond in the amount of $819,646.03, the amount awarded by the United States District Court for the Central District of Calif0rnia for attorney fees and costs. However, as Magnetar concedes, "that ruling is not part of Intamin’s appea1." Rather, that award was made after the notice of appeal in this case was filed.* Under these circumstances, Magnetar has not shown that a bond is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT ls 0RDERED THAT; (1) Intamin’s motion will be granted, the mandate will be recalled, and the appeal will be reinstated if In- tamin files the appendix within seven days of the date of filing of this order. No further extensions will be granted (2) Magnetar’s request for a bond is denied. " The district court entered judgment underlying this appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

3 1NirAM1N v. MAGNETAR FoR THE COURT |SEP 0 2 2010 /S/ Jan Hm-bay Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Ted S. Ward, Esq.

John B. Sganga, Jr., Esq.

ED u.s. couRi:i)lF APPr-:ALs ron s 1 7 ms FEoERA1 r:uzcu1T 3Ep j{},2 2010 .|AN HORBALY CLERK