Case Name: COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-30
Citations: 467 F.3d 1322
Docket Number: No. 05-5014
Parties: COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 467
Pages: 1322–1324

Head Matter:
COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-5014.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Aug. 30, 2006.
John S. Brown, Bingham McCutchen LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the petition were George P. Mair, Donald-Bruce Abrams and Matthew D. Schnall.
Francesca U. Tamami, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for defendant-appel-lee. With her on the response were Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General; Richard T. Morrison, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Gilbert S. Rothenberg and Bruce R. Ellisen, Attorneys.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellee. The petition was referred first as a petition for panel rehearing to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition and response were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on September 6, 2006.
Before NEWMAN, RADER, DYK, Circuit Judges.
. The merits panel issues a supplemental opinion simultaneously with this order.