Case Name: The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON CORPORATION and Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Defendants/Cross-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1998-05-28
Citations: 144 F.3d 1478
Docket Number: Nos. 97-1347, 97-1351
Parties: The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON CORPORATION and Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Defendants/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Circuit Judge CLEVENGER concurs in a separate opinion.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 144
Pages: 1478–1481

Head Matter:
The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON CORPORATION and Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Defendants/Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 97-1347, 97-1351.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
May 28, 1998.
Harry J. Roper, Roper & Quigg, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On brief were Raymond N. Nimrod and Aaron A. Barlow. Also on brief were Charles J. Kalil, The Dow Chemical Company, of Midland, Michigan, and L. Wayne White, of Freeport, Texas. Of counsel was George S. Bosy, Roper & Quigg.
Daniel Joseph, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for defendants/cross-appellants. On brief were Lisa S. Gallerano, John L. Hendricks and Richard C. Levin, of Dallas, Texas. Also on brief were Eric C. Woglom, Glenn A. Ousterhout, and Denise L. Loring, Fish & Neave, of New York City, and William J. Wade and Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., of Wilmington, Delaware. Of counsel were Scott R. Jacobs, of Dallas, Texas, and Richard J. Smith, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., of Austin, Texas, William J. McCabe, Fish & Neave, of New York City, and E. Edward Bruce, Covington & Burling, of Washington, DC.
David F. Dobbins, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP, of New York.City, for amicus curiae. Of counsel were Eugene M. Gelernter, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP, and Theodore B. Van Itallie, Johnson & Johnson, of New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Opinion:
ORDER
A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed by the Cross-Appellant, an amicus curiae brief having been filed by Johnson & Johnson, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and !filed by the Appellant, and the petition for rehearing having been referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the suggestion for rehearing in banc, amicus brief and response having been referred to the circuit judges who are 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 CLEVENGER concurs in a separate opinion.
Circuit Judge LOURIE, with whom Circuit Judge PAULINE NEWMAN and Circuit Judge RADER join, dissents in a separate opinion.
Circuit Judge BRYSON would rehear the appeal.
Circuit Judge MICHEL, Circuit Judge SCHALL and Circuit Judge GAJARSA did not participate.
The mandate of the court will issue on June 4,1998.