Case Name: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1989-07-18
Citations: 879 F.2d 849
Docket Number: No. 88-1409
Parties: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 879
Pages: 849–851

Head Matter:
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-1409.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
July 18, 1989.
Timothy J. Malloy, of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Chicago, Ill., argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Lawrence M. Jarvis and Gregory J. Vogler; of counsel were Leroy Whitaker and Bruce J. Barclay, Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.
. Philip S. Johnson of Woodcock Washburn Kurtz Mackiewicz & Norris, Philadelphia, Pa., argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Gary H. Levin, Albert W. Preston and Henrik D. Parker; of counsel were Joseph F. Breimayer and John L. Rooney of Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Donald 0. Beers, John Agar and David E. Korn of Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for amicus curiae, Zimmer, Inc. and Bristol-Myers Co. Also on the brief were Timothy Wendt; and Paul David Schoenle, Zimmer, Inc., Warsaw, Ind., of counsel.
Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senator, pro se, and Carlos J. Moorhead, U.S. Representative, pro se, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for amicus curiae.
George Gerstman, Gerstman & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., was on the brief for amicus curiae, Ventritex, Inc.
Michael I. Rackman, Barry A. Cooper and Allen I. Rubinstein, Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., New York City, were on the brief for amicus curiae, Telectronics, Inc. Also on the brief was William C. Nealon, of Suffield, Conn., of counsel.

Opinion:
CORRECTED ORDER
A suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed in this case, a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed, and two amicus curiae briefs in support of the suggestion for rehearing in banc and two amicus curiae briefs in opposition to the suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed,
UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is
ORDERED that the suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same hereby is, declined.