Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1999

American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Lucent Technologies Inc., United States/cross-Appellant

American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Lucent Technologies Inc., United States/cross-Appellant
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided May 26, 1999 · Mayer, Newman, Plager, Lourie, Clevenger, Rader, Schall, Bryson, Gajarsa
177 F.3d 1368; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 10813 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

C. Stanley Dees, McKenna & Cueno, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was J. Keith Burt. Of counsel on the brief were Thomas R. Suher, and Dean L. Grayson, Lucent Technologies, Inc., of Washington, DC., Bryant G. Snee, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellants. With him on the brief was David M. Cohen, Director. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. Hogue, James H. Haag, Attorneys, Office of General Counsel, Department of the Navy, of Arlington, Virginia., Caryl A. Potter, III, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, of Washington, DC, for ami-cus curiae Electronic Industries Alliance and Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. With him on the brief were Elizabeth A. Ferrell, of Washington, DC; Alan M. Posner, of Chicago, Illinois; and Roger K. Heidenreich, of St. Louis, Missouri., John Lloyd Rice, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association. With him on the brief was Clarence T. Kipps, Jr. Of counsel on the brief were L. James D’Agostino, Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, of McLean, Virginia; and George Hutchinson, Executive Director, Federal Circuit Bar Association, of Washington, DC.

American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Lucent Technologies Inc., United States/cross-Appellant

Cases that cite this one

52 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

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.

Opinion of the Court

Concurring Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

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