Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

737 F.3d 699, 108 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1653, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21713, 2013 WL 6500270
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided October 25, 2013·No. 19-2010·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

[700]*700REYNA, Circuit Judge, with whom RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, and, WALLACH Circuit Judges, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom RADER, Chief Judge, REYNA and WALLACH, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

ORDER

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by plaintiff-appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by defendant-appellant. The petition for rehearing en banc was first referred as a petition for rehearing to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is ORDERED That:

(1) The petition of plaintiff-appellee for panel rehearing is denied.

(2) The petition of plaintiff-appellee for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on November 1, 2013.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 737 F.3d 699, 108 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1653, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21713, 2013 WL 6500270 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

737 F.3d 699 (Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commil United States, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
575 U.S. 632 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc.
45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2014)