Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1035 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2011)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 10-1035
Decided
May 16, 2011
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC SINGAPORE

PRIVATE LIMITED,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Cross Appellant.

2010-1035, -1055

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island in case no. 03-CV-0440, Judge William E. Smith.

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND

REHEARING EN BANC

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, and

REYNA, Circuit Judges.

the petition for rehearing en banc. PER CURIAM.

2UNILOC USA v. MICROSOFT 2

O R D E R

A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendant-Cross Appellant. The court granted leave to file a brief amici curiae to ten damages experts, all appearing pro se.

The petition for panel rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and brief amici curiae 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-Appellants for panel rehearing is denied. (2) The petition of Plaintiffs-Appellants for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on May 23, 2011.

F OR THE COURT

May 16, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Donald R. Dunner, Esq. Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esq Michael J. Chapman

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1035 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-10-1035-20110516
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-10-1035-20110516

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.