Case Name: SUBAFILMS, LTD.; The Hearst Corp., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellees, v. MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO., fka MGM/UA Communications Co. and as United Artists Corporation; MGM/UA Home Video, Inc.; Warner Home Video, Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants; SUBAFILMS, LTD.; The Hearst Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO., fka MGM/UA Communications Co. and as United Artists Corporation; MGM/UA Home Video, Inc.; Warner Home Video, Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc.; United Artists Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-09-28
Citations: 5 F.3d 452
Docket Number: Nos. 91-56248, 91-56379, 91-56289
Parties: SUBAFILMS, LTD.; The Hearst Corp., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellees, v. MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO., fka MGM/UA Communications Co. and as United Artists Corporation; MGM/UA Home Video, Inc.; Warner Home Video, Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants. SUBAFILMS, LTD.; The Hearst Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO., fka MGM/UA Communications Co. and as United Artists Corporation; MGM/UA Home Video, Inc.; Warner Home Video, Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc.; United Artists Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 5
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
SUBAFILMS, LTD.; The Hearst Corp., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellees, v. MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO., fka MGM/UA Communications Co. and as United Artists Corporation; MGM/UA Home Video, Inc.; Warner Home Video, Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants. SUBAFILMS, LTD.; The Hearst Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO., fka MGM/UA Communications Co. and as United Artists Corporation; MGM/UA Home Video, Inc.; Warner Home Video, Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc.; United Artists Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 91-56248, 91-56379, 91-56289.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 1993.

Opinion:
ORDER
WALLACE, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.