A.C. AUKERMAN COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
R.L. CHAIDES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court vacated its prior judgment and opinion, and is rehearing the appeal in banc to consider specific questions regarding patent infringement defenses.
The court sua sponte decided to rehear an appeal in banc, vacating a prior judgment and opinion. Additional briefing is requested on specific issues r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Estoppel Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER OF JUNE 13, 1991
NIES, Chief Judge.
The Court in banc requests additional briefing on the following questions:
1. In a patent infringement suit, should a presumption of undue delay or a presumption of material prejudice or both arise in connection with a laches defense where the delay in filing suit exceeds six (6) years? See, e.g., Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Prods., 839 F. 2d 1544, 5 USPQ2d 1779 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 828, 109 S.Ct. 80, 102 L.Ed.2d 57 (1988).
2. If the answer to question 1 is inconsistent with the rule in other fields of law, see Cornetta v. United States, 851 F. 2d 1372 (Fed.Cir.1988), what justification is there for having a different rule?
3. In a patent infringement suit, what should be the elements of an estoppel defense?
The court does not preclude other relevant issues from being addressed in the supplemental briefs but advises that the original briefs will be considered by the in banc court.
The supplemental briefs will be filed in accordance with the following schedule:
1. Appellant’s supplemental brief shall be due on or before July 12, 1991;
2. Appellee’s supplemental brief shall be due on or before August 8, 1991;
3. Appellant’s supplemental reply brief, if any, shall be due on or before August 22, 1991.
The principal briefs shall be limited to thirty (30) pages. The reply brief shall be limited to ten (10) pages.
Oral argument will be heard on September 16, 1991, at 2:00 pm. Each side will be allowed twenty (20) minutes. Amicus curiae briefs may be filed in accordance with the rules.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 839 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
- Cornetta v. The United States & John Lehman, 851 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
- Lewis v. Anclote Manor Hosp., Inc., 488 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1988)
- Dobard v. Oscar Daste & Sons, Inc., 488 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1988)