Hughes Aircraft Company, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant/cross-appellant, 116 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Annotate this CaseKenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Of counsel were Philip C. Swain, Jay I. Alexander, and Christopher Landau, Washington, DC; William A. Streff, Jr., Chicago, IL; Victor G. Savikis, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Los Angeles, CA; and John J. Higgins and Wanda K. Denson-Low, Hughes Aircraft Company, Los Angeles, CA.
Thomas J. Byrnes, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant/Cross-Appellant. Of counsel were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General; Vito J. DiPietro, Director; William C. Bergmann, Janice M. Mueller, Edward H. Rice, and B. Frederick Buchanan, Jr., Attorneys, Department of Justice; and Paul F. McCaul, Attorney, Manhattan Beach, CA.
On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.ORDER
ARCHER, Chief Judge.
On June 10, 1997, Hughes Aircraft Company (Hughes) filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Affirmance, or in the Alternative, a Briefing Schedule Following Remand From the Supreme Court. On June 9, 1997, this court issued an order establishing a briefing schedule. It is ORDERED:
(1) Hughes' Motion for Leave to File is granted.
(2) Hughes' Alternative Motion for a Briefing Schedule is granted to the extent that Hughes requests a new Joint Appendix be filed. The Joint Appendix shall be filed by the parties under the rules of this court no later than September 2, 1997.
(3) The balance of Hughes' Motion for Affirmance, or in the Alternative, a Briefing Schedule, is denied as moot.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
