Cybor Corp. v. Fas Tech., Inc., & Fastar Ltd., Defendants/cross-Appellants, 122 F.3d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Cybor Corp. v. Fas Tech., Inc., & Fastar Ltd., Defendants/cross-Appellants, 122 F.3d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases · “[W]here a party attempts to introduce previously unsubmitted evidence on a motion to reconsider, the court should not grant the motion absent some showing that the evidence was not available during the pendency of the motion.”
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases · “[A] motion to reconsider should not be used by the parties to set forth new theories of law.”
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · “[A] motion to reconsider should not be used by the parties to set forth new theories of law”
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · “the court should not grant the motion absent some showing that the evidence was not available during the pendency of the motion.”
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cybor Corporation
v.
Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants/cross-Appellants
96-1286.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 5, 1997.
122 F.3d 46
Published
6 passages pin-cited by 19 cases
Pinpoint authority: #2,454 of 633,719
Citer courts: M.D. Florida (8) · M.D. Georgia (4) · W.D. Texas (3) · N.D. Alabama (1) · Eleventh Circuit (1) · S.D. Florida (1) · S.D. Georgia (1)

122 F.3d 46

CYBOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants/Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 96-1286, 96-1287.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

Sept. 5, 1997.

[*~46]1

Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Judge Whyte.

2

Tod L. Gamlen, Baker & McKenzie, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. With him on brief was David I. Roche, of Chicago, IL.

3

Douglas A. Cawley, Hughes & Luce, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants/Cross-Appellants. Of counsel was Aubrey Nick Pittman.

ORDER

4

The appeals, having been heard by a panel of the court and, thereafter, a majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service having acted sua sponte in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) and Fed. R.App. P. 35(a),

[*~47]5

IT IS ORDERED that the appeals shall be decided in banc. Additional briefing and argument will not be required.