Case Name: LIZARDTECH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff, v. EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING, INC. and Earth Resource Mapping Pty Ltd. (now Earth Resource Mapping Ltd.), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-05
Citations: 433 F.3d 1373
Docket Number: No. 05-1062
Parties: LIZARDTECH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff, v. EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING, INC. and Earth Resource Mapping Pty Ltd. (now Earth Resource Mapping Ltd.), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 433
Pages: 1373–1381

Head Matter:
LIZARDTECH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff, v. EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING, INC. and Earth Resource Mapping Pty Ltd. (now Earth Resource Mapping Ltd.), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1062.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2006.
Philip P. Mann, Mann Law Group, of Seattle, Washington, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief were Robert J. Carlson and Kevan L. Morgan, Christensen O’Connor Johnson & Kindness PLLC, of Seattle, Washington.
Stewart M. Brown, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP, of San Diego, California, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was Richard T. Mulloy.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellees. The matter 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 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 rehearing en banc is denied.
(2) The mandate of the court will issue on January 12, 2006.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom MICHEL, Chief Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, join, concurs in a separate opinion.
RADER, Circuit Judge, with whom GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, joins, dissents from the order denying rehearing en banc.