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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Marine Polymer Technologies v. Hemcon, No. 10-1548 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1548
Decided
January 20, 2012
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

MARINE POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HEMCON, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

2010-1548

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in case no. 06-CV-0100, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON,

G ,∗ L , D , P , M , R , and AJARSA INN YK ROST OORE EYNA

WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiff-Appellee and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendant-Appellant. The court granted leave to Intellectual Ventures Management LLC and Jan K. Voda, M.D. to file separate briefs amicus curiae.

2The petition for rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and briefs amicus curiae were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc.∗∗ A poll was requested, taken, and the court has decided that the appeal warrants en banc consideration.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellee for panel rehearing is denied.

(2) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellee for rehearing en banc is granted.

(3) The court’s opinion of September 26, 2011 is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated.

(4) This appeal will be heard en banc on the basis of the originally filed briefs. No additional briefing or oral argument will be requested.

F OR THE COURT

January 20, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Raymond A. Kurz, Esq.

Brian M. Poissant, Esq. Matthew C. Phillips, Esq. Mitchell G. Stockwell, Esq.

Footnotes

  1. ∗ Judge Gajarsa participated in the decision for panel rehearing.
  2. ∗∗ Judge O’Malley did not participate.

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

Marine Polymer Technologies v. Hemcon, No. 10-1548 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1548-20120120
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1548-20120120

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.