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            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.,
 

 (Fed. Cir. 2007); United States v.
 Carter, 

 (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.