Case Name: SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SAINT-GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-07
Citations: 647 F.3d 1373
Docket Number: Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-1177
Parties: SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SAINT-GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 647
Pages: 1373–1380

Head Matter:
SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SAINT-GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-1177.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 7, 2011.
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for defendant-appellant. With him on the petition were Virginia A. Seitz And James C. Owens. Of counsel on the petition was Arthur I. Neustadt, Obion Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia.
Gregg F. Locascio, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for plaintiff-cross appellant. With him on the response were John C. O’Quinn, William H. Burgess, Michael A. Pearson, Jr.; and Robert G. Krupka, of Los Angeles, California.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LINN, MOORE, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
RADER, Chief Judge, with whom NEWMAN, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom RADER, Chief Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge, join, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom GAJARSA and PROST, Circuit Judges, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by Defendant-Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Plaintiff-Cross Appellant. The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeals, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeals en banc. A poll was requested and failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The petition of Defendant-Appellant for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition of Defendant-Appellant for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on June 14, 2011.