U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2012

Capital MacHine Co., Inc. v. Miller Veneers, Inc.

Capital MacHine Co., Inc. v. Miller Veneers, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided June 14, 2012

Capital MacHine Co., Inc. v. Miller Veneers, Inc.

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CAPITAL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. AND INDIANA FORGE, LLC, Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, AND WILLIAM L. KOSS, Coumferclaim Defendant, V. MILLER VENEERS, INC., Defendant/ Cou,nterclaimant~Appellee, AND THOMAS A. MILLER, BENJAMIN R. MILLER, SALLY M. SANDO, ROBERT D. BRAND, INDIANAPOLIS VENEER WORKS, LLC, EGENOLF MACHINE, INC., AND MERRITT PLYWOOD MACHINERY, INC., Defendants / Counterclaimants-Appellees.

2012-1288 Appeal from the United States District C0urt for the Southern District of Indiana in case no. 09-CV-0'702, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.

CAPITAL MACH`[NE V. MILLER VEN.EERS 2 ON MOTION ORDER Capital Mach_ine Company, Inc. and Indiana Forge, LLC (Capita] Machine) move for leave to file a corresponding brief pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 32(e).

Mi]ler Veneers et a1. respond. Capital Machine replies Mi]ler Veneers moves for leave to file a surreply, with surreply attached.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motions are granted. Both parties Inay, if they choose, file corresponding briefs pursuant to Fed. Cir. Ru1e 32(e).

FoR THE CoURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk . - - Fl D cc. Michael A. Swift, Esq. u_s_ggug~rgp \=FEALS FOH Paul B. Overhauser, Esq. THE FEDERMC'RCH'T James I... McNeely, Esq. JUN ’] 4 2[]12 JANHc)naALY GLERK

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