Extract
Halliburton Energy Svcs. v. M-I, (2008)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.M-I LLC(doing business as M-I Drilling Fluids L.L.C.),Defendant-Appellee.Edward D. Manzo, Cook, Alex, McFarron, Manzo, Cummings & Mehler, Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Monte M. Bond and David L. Patterson, Dykema Gossett PLLC, of Dallas, Texas.John R. Keville, Howrey LLP, of Houston, Texas, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stephen H. Cagle and Richard L. Stanley. Of counsel on the brief was S. Calvin Capshaw, Brown McCarroll LLP, of Longview, Texas.Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of TexasJudge Leonard DavisUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitHALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,v.M-I LLC(doing business as M-I Drilling Fluids L.L.C.),Defendant-Appellee.Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 6:05-CV-155, Judge Leonard E. DavisDECIDED: January 25, 2008Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, BRYSON, Circuit Judge, and FOGEL,∗ District Judge. MICHEL, Chief Judge.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("Halliburton") appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, No. 6:05-CV-155 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2006) ("Judgment Order"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of M-I LLC ("M-I"), holding that independent claims 1-3 and 5 and their asserted dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,887,832 B2 ("the '832 patent") were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.∗ Honorable Jeremy Fogel, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.Plaintiff-Appellant,§ 112, ¶ 2. We heard oral argument on November 7, 2007. Because a clai...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
