Case Name: C.R. BARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M3 SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1998-12-11
Citations: 161 F.3d 1380
Docket Number: No. 96-1165
Parties: C.R. BARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M3 SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: with whom Circuit Judge CLEVENGER joins,
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 161
Pages: 1380–1381

Head Matter:
C.R. BARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M3 SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 96-1165.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Dec. 11, 1998.
John F. Sweeney, Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P., New York, New York, for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Harry C. Marcus, Desiree M. Stahl, and Walter G. Hanehuk. Of counsel were Warren H. Ro-tert and Steven F. Meyer.
Richard D. Harris, Law Offices of Dick and Harris, and Paul E. Slater, Sperling, Slater & Spitz, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for defendant-appellee. With them on the brief were Max Shaftal, Jordan A. Sígale, and Jovan N. Jovanovic, Law Offices of Dick and Harris, and Greg Shinall, Sperling, Slater & Spitz, P.C.

Opinion:
ORDER
A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed by C.R. Bard, Inc., and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by M3 Systems, Inc., and the petition for rehearing having been referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the suggestion for rehearing in banc and response having been referred to the circuit judges authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal in bane, and a poll having been requested, taken, and failed,
UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, 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.