Opinion
Nos. 91-1393, 91-1394 and 91-1409.
Decided August 14, 1995.
H. Michael Hartmann, Mark E. Phelps, Paul J. Korniczky, Bruce M. Gagala and Jeffrey S. Ward, Leydig, Voit Mayer, Chicago, IL, were on the brief for plaintiff/cross-appellant. Also on the brief was George P. Field, Boston, MA.
Steven M. Bauer, Mark Schonfeld and Loletta L. Darden, Testa, Hurwitz Thibeault, Boston, MA, were on the brief for defendant-appellant. Also on the brief was Robert M. Ward, Allegretti Witcoff, Boston, MA.
Roy E. Hofer, President, The Federal Circuit Bar Ass'n, Washington, DC, Anne E. Brookes, Honegman, Miller, Schwartz Cohen, Houston, TX and Robert J. Carlson, Christensen, O'Connor, Johnson Kindness, Seattle, WA, were on the brief for amicus curiae, Federal Circuit Bar Ass'n.
R. Carl Moy, Asst. Professor, William Mitchell College of Law, Saint Paul, MN, was on the brief for amicus curiae, R. Carl Moy.
Donald S. Chisum, Morrison Foerster, Seattle, WA, William Alsup, Morrison Foerster, San Francisco, CA, Gregory A. Long and Kent R. Raygor, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton, Los Angeles, CA, Charles Fried and Arthur Miller, Cambridge, MA, were on the brief for amicus curiae, Acuson Corp. and Honeywell, Inc.
S. Leslie Misrock, Rory J. Radding and Steven I. Wallach, Pennie Edmonds, New York City, were on the brief for amicus curiae, Ad Hoc Committee to Promote Uniformity in the Patent System.
Roger W. Parkhurst, Parkhurst, Wendel Rossi, Alexandria, VA, Harold C. Wegner, Wegner, Cantor, Mueller Player, Washington, DC, Nancy J. Linck, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, DC, and Gary L. Newtson, President, American Intellectual Property Law Ass'n, Arlington, VA, were on the brief for amicus curiae, American Intellectual Property Law Ass'n.
Appealed from U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; WILLIAM G. YOUNG, District Judge.
Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, RICH, NIES, NEWMAN, MAYER, MICHEL, PLAGER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The appeals, having originally been submitted after oral argument to a panel of the court and, thereafter, it having been ordered sua sponte that the appeals should be heard by the court in banc, and after submission to the court in banc following additional briefing by the parties and amici curiae and oral argument,
IT IS ORDERED that the appeals shall be decided by the panel to which they were originally submitted.