United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-1386
PRINCO CORPORATION and PRINCO AMERICA CORPORATION,
Appellants,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee,
and
U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
Intervenor.
Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-
TA-474.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, BRYSON,
GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Intervenor U.S. Philips Corporation filed a petition for rehearing en banc,
Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation filed a petition for
rehearing en banc, and Appellee International Trade Commission filed a petition for
rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Each petition for rehearing en banc was
presumed to request relief that can be granted by the panel that heard the appeal, and
action on the petitions for rehearing en banc was deferred until the panel had an
opportunity to grant the relief requested. The panel requested responses to U.S.
Philips’s petition from Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation, to
Princo’s petition from Appellee International Trade Commission and from Intervenor
U.S. Philips Corporation, and to the International Trade Commission’s petition from
Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation; each of the requested
responses was filed. The court granted the New York Intellectual Property Law
Association’s motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae supporting U.S. Philips’s
petition and opposing Princo’s petition, and Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo
America Corporation filed a response to the amicus curiae brief.
The petitions for rehearing were considered by the panel that heard the appeal.
Thereafter, the petitions for rehearing en banc, the responses, the amicus curiae brief,
and the response to the amicus curiae brief were referred to the circuit judges
authorized to request a poll on whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was
requested and taken, and the court has decided that the appeal warrants en banc
consideration.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition of Intervenor U.S. Philips Corporation for rehearing en banc is
granted.
(2) The petition of Appellee International Trade Commission for rehearing en
banc is granted.
(3) The petition of Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America
Corporation for rehearing en banc is denied.
(4) The court’s April 20, 2009, opinion is vacated, and the appeal is
reinstated.
(5) The parties are requested to file new briefs addressing primarily those
issues originally decided in Section II of the court’s April 20, 2009 opinion.
2007-1386 -2-
This appeal will be heard en banc on the basis of the originally filed briefs,
additional briefing ordered herein addressing the issues set forth above, and oral
argument. An original and thirty copies of all originally-filed and new en banc briefs
shall be filed, and two copies of each en banc brief shall be served on opposing
counsel. The Intervenor shall file its brief within forty-five (45) days from the date of
filing of this order. The responses of the Appellants and Appellees are due within thirty
(30) days from the date of service of the Intervenor’s brief. The Intervenor’s reply, if
any, is due within ten (10) days from the date of service of the responses. Briefs shall
adhere to the type-volume limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
32 and Federal Circuit Rule 32.
Briefs of amici curiae will be entertained, and any such amicus briefs may be filed
without leave of court but must otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 29 and Federal Circuit Rule 29.
Oral argument will be held at a time and date to be announced later.
FOR THE COURT
October 13, 2009__ /s/ Jan Horbaly________
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: A. Douglas Melamed, Esq.
Eric L. Wesenberg, Esq.
James M. Lyons, Esq.
Charles A. Weiss, Esq.
2007-1386 -3-