The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
2005-5014•Computervision Corporation v. United States
2005-5014Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitAug 30, 2006
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-5014
COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
John S. Brown, Bingham McCutchen LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, filed a
petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the petition were
George P. Mair, Donald-Bruce Abrams and Matthew D. Schnall.
Francesca U. Tamami, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of
Justice, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for defendant-appellee.
With her on the response were Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General; Richard
T. Morrison, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Gilbert S. Rothenberg and Bruce R.
Ellisen, Attorneys.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Marian Blank Horn
-- 1 of 3 --
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-5014
COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL,
BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellant, and a response
thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellee. The petition was referred first
as a petition for panel rehearing to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the
petition and response were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active
service.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for rehearing is denied.1
(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on September 6, 2006.
1 The merits panel issues a supplemental opinion simultaneously with this order.
-- 2 of 3 --
FOR THE COURT
_Aug 30 2006 _s/Jan Horbaly____
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: John S. Brown, Esq.
Francesca U. Tamami, Esq.
05-5014 2
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.