TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Computervision v. United States

Computervision v. United States, 445 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 30, 2006
Docket
No. 2005-5014
Citations
445 F.3d 1355

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-5014 COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

John S. Brown, Bingham McCutchen LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the petition were George P. Mair, Donald-Bruce Abrams and Matthew D. Schnall.

Francesca U. Tamami, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for defendant-appellee. With her on the response were Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General; Richard T. Morrison, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Gilbert S. Rothenberg and Bruce R. Ellisen, Attorneys.

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims

Judge Marian Blank Horn United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-5014 COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ORDER A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellant, and a response

thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellee. The petition was referred first

as a petition for panel rehearing to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the

petition and response were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active

service.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for rehearing is denied.1 (2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on September 6, 2006.

1 The merits panel issues a supplemental opinion simultaneously with this order. FOR THE COURT

_Aug 30 2006 _s/Jan Horbaly____ Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: John S. Brown, Esq. Francesca U. Tamami, Esq.

05-5014 2

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2026: 220262026peak 2026 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United StatesNo. 20-1254 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 16, 2026)
  2. Transupport, Inc. v. United StatesNo. 25-352 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 15, 2026)

Most recent

  1. Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United StatesNo. 20-1254 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 16, 2026)
  2. Transupport, Inc. v. United StatesNo. 25-352 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 15, 2026)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Blakley v. United States, 593 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 25
Computervision v. U.S. [Supplemental Order], 467 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 19
Refining v. United States, 565 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 14
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. United States, 469 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 13
Fleetboston Fin. Corp. v. United States, 483 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 11
Barrick Res. (USA) Inc. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2008) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list