Zoltek Corp. v. United States

464 F.3d 1335, 80 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1157, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23962
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided September 21, 2006·No. 2004-5100·Published

Opinions

ORDER

A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Cross-Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellant. The matter was referred first as petition for panel rehearing to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who were authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc1. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for rehearing is deified.

(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

(8) The mandate of the court will issue on September 28, 2006.

[1336] NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissents in a separate opinion. DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, joins, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 464 F.3d 1335, 80 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1157, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23962 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

464 F.3d 1335 (Zoltek Corp. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright
94 U.S. 92 (Supreme Court, 1877)
Cammeyer v. Newton
94 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 1877)
James v. Campbell
104 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court, 1882)
Schillinger v. United States
155 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft
224 U.S. 290 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Lynch v. United States
292 U.S. 571 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Armstrong v. United States
364 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.
467 U.S. 986 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford
295 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1935)