Case Name: EXXON CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LUBRIZOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1996-02-23
Citations: 77 F.3d 450
Docket Number: Nos. 93-1275, 94-1309
Parties: EXXON CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LUBRIZOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Circuit Judge Mayer concurs in a separate opinion.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 77
Pages: 450–457

Head Matter:
EXXON CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LUBRIZOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 93-1275, 94-1309.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1996.
Donald R. Dunner, and Allan M. Sokal, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, D.C., Charles Alan Wright, of Austin, Texas and E. Edward Bruce, Covington & Burling, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees, filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Bane.
S. Leslie Misrock, Pennie & Edmonds, of New York City, Timothy B. Dyk, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Washington, D.C., George J. Moscarino, and John W. Edwards, II, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Cleveland, Ohio, Stanton T. Lawrence, III, Pennie & Edmonds, of Washington, D.C., and Kenneth R. Adamo, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Dallas, Texas, for defendant-appellant filed a Response to appellees’ Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc.

Opinion:
ORDER
A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed by the appellee, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the appellant, and the petition for rehearing having been referred to and acted upon by the panel that heard the appeal, and, thereafter, the suggestion for rehearing in banc, the response and a reply to the response, having been referred to the judges authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal in banc, and a poll having been requested, taken, and failed, it is
ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be, and the same hereby is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same hereby is, DECLINED.
Circuit Judge Mayer concurs in a separate opinion.
Circuit Judge Clevenger, with whom Circuit Judge Plager joins, concurs in a separate opinion.
Circuit Judge Newman dissents in a separate opinion.
Chief Judge Archer, Circuit Judge Rich, and Circuit Judge Sehall did not participate in the poll.