Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Peter L. Berger, Levisohn, Lerner, Berger Langsam, LLP, of New York, New York, filed a response to the petition for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the response was Marilyn Neiman. David M. Barkan, Fish Richardson, P.C., of Redwood City, California, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendant-appellee. With him on the petition was David M. Shaw, Vice President, Legal Affairs Corporate Counsel, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., of Sunnydale, California. Of counsel were Todd G. Miller and Dina Grinshpun, Fish Richardson, P.C., of San Diego, California; and Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish Richardson, P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts.
Judges
  • Alvin Anthony Schall
  • William Curtis Bryson
  • Richard Linn
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Peter L. Berger, Levisohn, Lerner, Berger Langsam, LLP, of New York, New York, filed a response to the petition for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the response was Marilyn Neiman. David M. Barkan, Fish Richardson, P.C., of Redwood City, California, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendant-appellee. With him on the petition was David M. Shaw, Vice President, Legal Affairs Corporate Counsel, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., of Sunnydale, California. Of counsel were Todd G. Miller and Dina Grinshpun, Fish Richardson, P.C., of San Diego, California; and Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish Richardson, P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts.
Judges
  • Alvin Anthony Schall
  • William Curtis Bryson
  • Richard Linn
See more information ...
Smart Summary

BROOKHILL-WILK 1, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC ORDER

A combined petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc was filed by the defendant-appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The petition for rehearing and response was referred first to the merits panel that heard this appeal, and thereafter, the petition for rehearing en banc 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 panel rehearing is GRANTED for limited purposes in a separate order.

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

The mandate of the court will issue on July 7, 2003.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

BROOKHILL-WILK 1, LLC v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., 02-1145 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(Jun 27, 2003)