U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1996

Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol Corporation

Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol Corporation
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided February 23, 1996 · Mayer, Clevenger, Plager, Newman, Archer, Rich, Sehall
77 F.3d 450; 37 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1767; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3150; 1996 WL 79824 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Donald R. Dunner, and Allan M. Sokal, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, D.C., Charles Alan Wright, of Austin, Texas and E. Edward Bruce, Covington & Burling, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees, filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Bane., S. Leslie Misrock, Pennie & Edmonds, of New York City, Timothy B. Dyk, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Washington, D.C., George J. Moscarino, and John W. Edwards, II, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Cleveland, Ohio, Stanton T. Lawrence, III, Pennie & Edmonds, of Washington, D.C., and Kenneth R. Adamo, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Dallas, Texas, for defendant-appellant filed a Response to appellees’ Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc.

Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol Corporation

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Dissenting Opinion

Opinion of the Court

Concurring Opinion

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.