1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 99 F.3d
  5. 99 F.3d 1098 (1996)
 

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. CAT CONTRACTING

Nos. 96-1078, 96-1099.

99 F.3d 1098 (1996)

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Insituform (Netherlands) B.V. and Insituform Gulf South, Inc., Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants, v. CAT CONTRACTING, INC., Michigan Sewer Construction, Kanal Sanierung Hans Mueller GmbH & Co KG and Inliner U.S.A., Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Rehearings Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing Declined December 13, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harold James, James & Franklin, New York City, argued, for plaintiffs/cross-appellants.

Edward W. Goldstein, Tobor & Goldstein, L.L.P., Houston, TX, argued, for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief was John T. Polasek.

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

Rehearings Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined December 13, 1996.

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

Inliner1 appeals from the district court's order denying its motion for post-verdict judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV")2 of invalidity of United States Patent No. 4,336,012 ("the '012 patent"), the district court's order denying its motion to amend certain counterclaims, and the district...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases