Case ID: f-appx_603/html/1010-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard A. WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, Citrix Systems, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Adobe Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Webex Communications, Inc., Cisco Webex, LLC, Cisco Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees International Business Machines Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 2013-1130.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    June 16, 2015.
    Brett Johnston Williamson, Attorney, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Brian T. Bagley, Esq., Attorney, Scott Dion Marrs, Esq., Attorney, William C. Norvell, Jr., Attorney, Beirne Maynard & Parsons, LLP, Houston, TX, Tim D. Byron, Attorney, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Frank Scherkenbach, Kurt Louis Glit-zenstein, Attorney, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, Indranil Mukerji, Esq., Attorney, Fish & Richardson, P.C., William F. Sheehan, Esq., Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, Douglas M. Kubehl, Attorney, Brian Douglas Johnston, Attorney, Samara Kline, Baker Botts, LLP, Dallas, TX, Mark J. Abate, Attorney, Calvin E. Wingfield, Jr., Esq., Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, Gregory Scott Bishop, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, Redwood City, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing en banc having been filed by Appellees, a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the Appellant, the petition and response having been referred to the panel that heard the appeal, the petition and response thereafter having been referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service, and a poll having been requested and taken,

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition for rehearing en banc is granted for the limited purpose of overruling certain prior precedent regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6.

(2) The panel’s judgment and original opinion entered on November 5, 2014, and reported at 770 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2014), is vacated and is replaced by a new panel opinion issued this date.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissents from the grant of the petition for rehearing en banc.