ORENSHTEYN V CITRIX SYSTEMS, No. 03-1427 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2003-1427, 2008-1378, -1400 ALEXANDER S. ORENSHTEYN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and DAVID FINK, TIMOTHY W. JOHNSON, and FINK & JOHNSON, Sanctioned Parties-Appellants, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in case no. 02-CV-60478, Judge Adalberto Jordan. ON MOTION Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Alexander S. Orenshteyn moves for leave to file dictionary excerpts as a supplemental appendix, with the two excerpts attached to his motion as Exhibits A and B. Citrix Systems, Inc. opposes. The court considers whether to treat Orenshteyn's submission as a motion for judicial notice. Because the dictionary excerpts were not before the district court, they are not part of the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). Nevertheless, we conclude that the dictionary excerpts may be judicially noticed. However, the relevance of the materials is left to the discretion of the merits panel. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted to the extent that the court takes judicial notice of the dictionary excerpts. A copy of Exhibits A and B of Orenshteyn's motion and this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to decide this case. FOR THE COURT MAY 18 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Date cc: 06VRTP§1 LS F THE EDERAlitUIT OR Alexander S. Orenshteyn Douglas J. Kline, Esq. David Fink, Esq. MAY 18 2009 .11th i1ORwj CLERK s17 2003-1427 et al. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.