Case Name: ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAVINTA LLC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 672 F.3d 1239
Docket Number: No. 2009-1539
Parties: ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAVINTA LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 672
Pages: 1239–1250

Head Matter:
ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAVINTA LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2009-1539.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
March 14, 2011.
Richard De Bodo, DLA Piper LLP (US), of Los Angeles, CA, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the petition was Siegmund Y. Gutman. Meredith Martin Addy, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, of Chicago, IL, filed a response to the petition for defendant-appellant. With her on the response were Mark H. Remus, Laura A. Lydigsen, and Luke A. Parsons.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge,
with whom LINN and DYK, Circuit Judges, join,
concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge,
with whom NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, joins,
dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiff-Appellee, and a response thereto wras invited by the court and filed by Defendanh-Appellant.
The petition for panel rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The Plaintiff-Appellee's petition for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The Plaintiff-Appellee's petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on March 21, 2011.