Case Name: MEMORYLINK CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Jonathan P. Meyer, Hugh C. Dunlop, Thomas G. Berry, J. Ray Wood, and Terri S. Hughes, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-11
Citations: 676 F.3d 1051
Docket Number: No. 2010-1533
Parties: MEMORYLINK CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Jonathan P. Meyer, Hugh C. Dunlop, Thomas G. Berry, J. Ray Wood, and Terri S. Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 676
Pages: 1051–1053

Head Matter:
MEMORYLINK CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Jonathan P. Meyer, Hugh C. Dunlop, Thomas G. Berry, J. Ray Wood, and Terri S. Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 2010-1533.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 11, 2012.
Paul E. Schaafsma, Novus IP, LLC, of Chicago, IL, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant.
Anne M. Sidrys, P.C., Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Chicago, IL, filed a response to the petition for defendants-appellees. With her on the response were Nyika O. Strickland and Joel R. Merkin.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiff-Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendants-Appellees. The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and the 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-Appellant for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellant for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on April 18, 2012.