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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd, No. 14-1492 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2015)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1492
Decided
November 17, 2015
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Precedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD.,

MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants

2014-1492

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in No. 2:09-cv-00290-NBF, Judge Nora Barry Fischer.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND

REHEARING EN BANC

PATRICK JOSEPH MCELHINNY, K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by MARK G. KNEDEISEN, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL VERDINI; THEODORE J. ANGELIS, DOUGLAS B. GREENSWAG, DAVID T. MCDONALD, Seattle, WA; E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY; ERIC SHUMSKY, Washington, DC; BAS DE BLANK, Menlo Park, CA.

2KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendants-appellants. Also represented by EDWARD J. DEFRANCO, JOSEPH MILOWIC III, CLELAND B. WELTON II; SUSAN RACHEL ESTRICH, MICHAEL THOMAS ZELLER, Los Angeles, CA; KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON, Redwood Shores, CA; DEREK SHAFFER, Washington, DC; ROY WANG, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Santa Clara, CA.

DAN L. BAGATELL, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for amici curiae Broadcom Corporation, Xilinx, Inc. Also represented by KENNETH J. HALPERN, Palo Alto, CA.

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES,

and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Carnegie Mellon’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied in part and held in abeyance in part. The court will hold in abeyance any decision on the request for rehearing en banc with respect to the first issue raised in Carnegie Mellon’s petition, which seeks review of the panel’s ruling on the enhancement of damages issue. The court will hold Carnegie Mellon’s petition as to that issue pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) cert. granted, No. 14-1513, 2015 WL 3883472 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2015) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 782 F.3d 649 (Fed. Cir. 2015) cert. granted, No. 14-1520, 2015 WL 3883499 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2015). Carnegie Mellon’s petition for rehearing en banc is otherwise denied. Marvell’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. A partial mandate will issue returning the case to the3 district court, which shall have discretion to determine how and when best to handle the proceedings on remand. IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Carnegie Mellon’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied in part and held in abeyance in part.

(2) Marvell’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied

(3) A partial mandate will issue on November 24, 2015.

FOR THE COURT

November 17, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court

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

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd, No. 14-1492 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1492-20151117
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1492-20151117

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.