Case Name: AMGEN INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL, INC. (now known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-22
Citations: 469 F.3d 1039
Docket Number: No. 05-1157
Parties: AMGEN INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL, INC. (now known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, Circuit Judges, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 469
Pages: 1039–1046

Head Matter:
AMGEN INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL, INC. (now known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 05-1157.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 22, 2006.
Lloyd R. Day, Jr., Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP, of Cupertino, California, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the petition were Edward M. O’Toole, McCracken & Frank, of Chicago, Illinois; Michael F. Borun, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, of Chicago, Illinois; and Stuart L. Watt, Amgen Inc., of Thousand Oaks, California.
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for defendants-appellants. With him on the response was Joseph R. Guerra.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, Circuit Judges, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Senior Judge Clevenger, who was on the original panel, participated only in decision on the petition for panel rehearing.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC.
ORDER
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellants. The petition for 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 petition for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on November 29, 2006.
MICHEL, Chief Judge, with whom RADER, Circuit Judge, joins, dissents in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissents in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.
RADER, Circuit Judge, dissents in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, with whom LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges, join, concur in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.
MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissents in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.