Case Name: HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant/Cross-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-06-11
Citations: 116 F.3d 1583
Docket Number: Nos. 94-5149, 95-5001
Parties: HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 116
Pages: 1583–1584

Head Matter:
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 94-5149, 95-5001.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 11, 1997.
Kenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Of counsel were Philip C. Swain, Jay I. Alexander, and Christopher Landau, Washington, DC; William A Streff, Jr., Chicago, IL; Victor G. Savikis, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Los Angeles, CA; and John J. Higgins and Wanda K. Denson-Low, Hughes Aircraft Company, Los Angeles, CA
Thomas J. Byrnes, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for DefendanVCross-Appellant. Of counsel were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General; Vito J. DiPietro, Director; William C. Bergmann, Janice M. Mueller, Edward H. Rice, and B. Frederick Buchanan, Jr., Attorneys, Department of Justice; and Paul F. McCaul, Attorney, Manhattan Beach, CA.

Opinion:
ORDER
ARCHER, Chief Judge.
On June 10,1997, Hughes Aircraft Company (Hughes) filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Affirmance, or in the Alternative, a Briefing Schedule Following Remand From the Supreme Court. On June 9, 1997, this court issued an order establishing a briefing schedule. It is ORDERED:
(1) Hughes' Motion for Leave to File is granted.
(2) Hughes' Alternative Motion for a Briefing Schedule is granted to the extent that Hughes requests a new Joint Appendix be filed. The Joint Appendix shall be filed by the parties under the rules of this court no later than September 2,1997.
(3)The balance of Hughes' Motion for Af-firmance, or in the Alternative, a Briefing Schedule, is denied as moot.