Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc., ET AL., No. 03-1092 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2005)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 03-1092
Decided
September 14, 2005
Judge
See opinion
Document
Precedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

03-1092

RON NYSTROM,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

TREX COMPANY, INC. and TREX COMPANY, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Joseph S. Presta, Nixon & Vanderhye, P.C., of Arlington, Virginia, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Patrick J. Coyne, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was Troy E. Grabow. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Jerome B. Friedman

2United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

03-1092

RON NYSTROM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TREX COMPANY, INC. and TREX COMPANY, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before MAYER,* GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Trex Co., Inc. and Trex Co., LLC. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Ron Nystrom. Thereafter, these filings were referred to the merits panel that heard the appeal.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) the petition for panel rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of addressing the effects of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and

3(2) the previous opinion of the court in this appeal, issued on June 28, 2004 and reported at 374 F.3d 1105, is withdrawn. The new opinion accompanies this order. FOR THE COURT

__Sep 14_2005___ _s/Jan Horbaly___ Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

03-1092 2

Footnotes

  1. * Haldane Robert Mayer vacated the position of Chief Judge on December 24, 2004.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc., ET AL., No. 03-1092 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2005).

Record ID
CAFC-03-1092-20050914-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-03-1092-20050914-1

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.