Case: 23-2429     Document: 33     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            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

             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 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 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: 2    Filed: 05/24/2024




 2              CTD NETWORKS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION




 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., 

 (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 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: 3      Filed: 05/24/2024




 CTD NETWORKS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION                 3



    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                              FOR THE COURT




 May 24, 2024
     Date