I4I v. Microsoft
This text of I4I v. Microsoft (I4I v. Microsoft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1504
I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and INFRASTRUCTURES FOR INFORMATION INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before SCHALL, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by
Microsoft Corporation. A response was invited by the panel and filed by i4i Limited
Partnership. That was followed by Microsoft’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in
Support of Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
Among the issues on which Microsoft has sought rehearing is the holding that
Microsoft did not challenge the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s post-verdict JMOL on
willfulness. i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 589 F.3d 1246, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Microsoft
argues that this conclusion is factually incorrect, that review of the jury’s willfulness
verdict is required, and that it should prevail on that question. IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Microsoft’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Combined Petition
for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc is granted.
(2) Microsoft’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of
revising portions of the discussion of willfulness.
(3) The previous opinion in this appeal issued December 22, 2009 and reported
at i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 589 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009), is withdrawn and replaced
with the revised opinion accompanying this order.
The Petition for Rehearing En Banc will be circulated to the full court along with a
copy of this order.
FOR THE COURT
March 10, 2010 ___ /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
cc: Matthew D. Powers Donald R. Dunner John W. Thornburgh Richard Samp
2009-1504 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
I4I v. Microsoft, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i4i-v-microsoft-cafc-2010.