Case Name: LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1998-06-18
Citations: 145 F.3d 1472
Docket Number: Nos. 95-1242, 95-1311
Parties: LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 145
Pages: 1472–1480

Head Matter:
LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant.
Nos. 95-1242, 95-1311.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 18, 1998.
S. Leslie Misrock, Pennie & Edmonds, LLP, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Rory J. Radding, New York City, Stanton T. Lawrence, III, and Paul J. Zegger, Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief was Frederick A. Lorig, Bright & Lorig, Los Angeles, CA.
Gregory A. Long, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Coyne, Jr. and Kent R. Raygor. Of counsel on the brief were Richard G. Taranto, Farr & Taranto, Washington, DC; William K. West, Jr., Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Washington, DC; and George E. Quillin, Foley & Lardner, Washington, DC. Of counsel were Richard E. Carlton and Joseph E. Neuhaus, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, and Laurence H. Pretty, Pretty, Schroeder, Brueggemann & Clark, Los Angeles, CA.

Opinion:
ORDER
A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed by the Appellant, and a response therto having been invited by the court and filed by the Cross Appellant, 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 who are in regular active service, and a poll whether to rehear the appeal in banc 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 bane be, and the same hereby is, DECLINED.
Circuit Judges Plager, Clevenger, and Ga-jarsa dissent in separate opinions.
Circuit Judge Newman has filed a separate opinion with views on the suggestion for rehearing in banc.
The mandate of the court will issue on June 25,1998.