UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
August 15, 1986
KLOSTER SPEEDSTEEL AB, SPEEDSTEEL OF NEW JERSEY, INC., APPELLANTS, STORA KOPPARBERGS BERG SLAGS AB, A SWEDISH CORP., AND UDDEHOLMES AB, A SWEDISH CORP., ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES
CRUCIBLE INC., ETC., AND CRUCIBLE MATERIAL CORP., ETC., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS.
Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Diamond
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge..
MARKEY, Chief Judge.
Stora Kopparbergs AB, Uddeholms AB, Stora Kopparbergs Corporation and Uddeholms Steel Corporation (Stora), and Kloster Speedsteel AB and Speedsteel of New Jersey, Inc. (Kloster) have filed Petitions for Rehearsing of Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 230 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The petitions are granted to the extent of making the following changes in the opinion issued by this court of June 11, 1986:
a) On page 9, lines 12-13, delete "Patent drawings are not drawn to scale, and that" and substitute -- That -- .
b) On page 9, line 14, delete "drawing" and substitute -- photograph -- .
c) On page 9, line 16, after "elements,", insert -- i.e., chemical inhomogeneity, inability to achieve full density without sacrifising fine carbide sizes, --.
d) On page 33, lines 7-15, delete "The effort of Stora to evade the effect of any possible injunction by divesting itself of its facilities for producing infringing products, the effort of Kloster to evade the injunction and thus gain freedom to continue the infringement and force Crucible to a second lawsuit, and the continuation of those efforts by appeal to this court, do not reflect the highest ethical standards of either the business community or the legal profession.", and substitute -- There has been no determination that Stora divested itself of its facilities for producing infringing products for the purpose of evading the effect of any possible injunction. Nor has it been determined that Kloster's effort to evade the injunction was for the purpose of gaining freedom to continue the infringement and force Crucible to a second lawsuit. Such purposes would of course not reflect the highest ethical standards of either the business community or the legal profession. --.
e) On page 37, delete footnote 17.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1) The petitions for rehearing are granted, and the opinion issued June 11, 1986 is modified, to the extent indicated above.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.