Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

659 F.3d 1369, 100 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1714, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22038, 2011 WL 5222835
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided October 31, 2011·No. 2010-1402·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

MOORE, Circuit Judge with whom RADER, Chief Judge, joins, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

[1370]*1370ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendanb-Appellant. The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and the 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 Plaintiffs-Appellees for panel rehearing is denied.

(2) The petition of Plaintiffs-Appellees for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on November 7, 2011.

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

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 659 F.3d 1369, 100 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1714, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22038, 2011 WL 5222835 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

659 F.3d 1369 (Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related