Case Name: COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 737 F.3d 699
Docket Number: No. 2012-1042
Parties: COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 737
Pages: 699–704

Head Matter:
COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2012-1042.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2013.
Mark S. Werbner, Sayles Werbner, P.C., of Dallas, TX, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the petition were Richard A. Sayles and Mark D. Strachan. Of counsel on the petition were , Leslie V. Payne, Nathan J. Davis and Miranda Y. Jones, Heim, Payne & Chorush, of Houston, TX.
William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, MA, filed a response to the petition for defendant-appellant. With him on the response were Mark C. Fleming, Jonathan W. An-dron, and Felicia H. Ellsworth; and William G. McElwain, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the response were Henry B. Gutman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, of New York, NY; and Jeffrey E. Ostrow, Harrison J. Frahn, IV, Patrick E. King, and Jonathan Sanders, of Palo Alto, CA.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
. Circuit Judge Hughes did not participate.

Opinion:
REYNA, Circuit Judge, with whom RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, and, WALLACH Circuit Judges, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom RADER, Chief Judge, REYNA and WALLACH, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
ORDER
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by plaintiff-appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by defendant-appellant. The petition for rehearing en banc was first referred as a petition for rehearing 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 of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is ORDERED That:
(1) The petition of plaintiff-appellee for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition of plaintiff-appellee for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on November 1, 2013.