Scico Tec Gmbh v. Boston Scientific Corp.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCICO TEC GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., Defendants-Appellees. V. JONATHAN LEE RICHES, Movant-Appellant. 2012-1449 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 07-CV-0076, Judge Ron Clark. Before LOURIE, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. O R D E R Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States Dis- trict Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s denial of his motion to intervene The court considers whether to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction SCICO TEC Gl\/IBH V. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. 2 On May 5, 2009, the district court dismissed the un- derlying patent case with prejudice.' On May 22, 2009, the district court denied appellant’s motion to intervene, noting there was no indication that appellant had "an interest related to the ‘403 Patent." The appellant’s notice of appeal was received at the court on May 29, 2012, 1103 days after denial of his motion to intervene. To challenge the district court’s May 22, 2009 order denying the appellant’s motion for leave to intervene, the appellant should have filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of that 0rder. See Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors In Action, 480 U.S. 370, 377 (198'7) (an order denying a motion for leave to intervene is subject to immediate review); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ("['l`]he notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from."). Because this appeal was filed outside the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must dismiss. Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. ' Because the underlying complaint asserted patent infringement claims, this court would otherwise have jurisdiction See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(l); Christiansen v. Colt Industries Operating Corp, 486 U.S. 300 (1988). 3 SCICO TEC GN[BH V. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. AUG 0 3 2012 Date cci Jonathan Lee Riches Stanley M. Gibson, Esq. S. Calvin Capshaw, III, Esq. s26 Fos THE CoURT /s/ J an Horbal J an Horbaly Clerk LED emi AUG 03 Zlll'£ JAN HURBAI.Y clean