Case Name: ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Natera, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees. DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee v. SEQUENOM, INC., Sequenom Center For Molecular Medicine, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. Isis Innovation Limited, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-02
Citations: 809 F.3d 1282
Docket Number: Nos. 2014-1139, 2014-1144
Parties: ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Natera, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees. DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee v. SEQUENOM, INC., Sequenom Center For Molecular Medicine, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. Isis Innovation Limited, Defendant.
Judges: Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 809
Pages: 1282–1294

Head Matter:
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Natera, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees. DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee v. SEQUENOM, INC., Sequenom Center For Molecular Medicine, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. Isis Innovation Limited, Defendant.
Nos. 2014-1139, 2014-1144.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Dec. 2, 2015.
Michael J. Maleeek, Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Peter E. Root; Aton Arbisser, Los Angeles, CA; Thomas Gold-stein, Eric F. Citron, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Bethesda, MD.
David Isaac Gindler, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, filed a response to the petition for plaintiff-appellee Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. Also represented by Andrei Iancu, Joshua Gordon; Amir Naini, Russ August & Rabat, Los Angeles, CA.
Mark Andrew Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C, filed a response to the petition for .plaintiff-appel-lee Natera, Inc. Also represented by Tracey B. Davies, Brett Rosenthal, Michael A. Valek, Dallas, TX.
William Paul Schuck, Bartko,. Zankel, Bunzel & Miller, San Francisco, CA, for counterclaim defendant-appellee DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc.
Gideon A. Schor, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, New York, N.Y., for amici -curiae Amarantus Bioscience Holdings, Inc., Personalis, Inc., Population Diagnostics, Inc. Also represented by Maya Skubatch, Palo Alto, CA; Richard Torc-zon, Charles J. Andres, Jr., Washington, DC.
Lana Gladstein, Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, Boston, MA, for amicus.curiae Bioindustry Association. Also represented by Konstantin M. Linnik, Isaac A. Hubner.
Christopher Michael Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, for amici curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Biotechnology Industry Organization also represented by Brian P. Barrett, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN; Li Wester-lund, Bavarian Nordic, Inc.,.Redwood City, CA.
Benjamin Jackson, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, for amicus curiae The Coalition for 2Í'st Century Medicine. Also represented by David Carter Hoffman, Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA.
Donald Louis Zuhn, Jr., McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Chicago,- IL, for amicus curiae Paul Gilbert Cole.
Teige P. Sheehan, Heslin, Rothenberg, Farley & Mesiti, P.C., Albany, N.Y., for amicus curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association. Also represented by Philip Staton Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ; Kevin H. Rhodes, ,3M Innovative Properties Company, St. Paul, MN; Herbert Clare Wamsley, JR., Intellectual -Property Owners Association, Washington, DC.
Matthew James Dowd, Andrews Kurth LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Jyant Technologies, Inc. Also represented by Robert A. Gutkin, Sushila Chanana.
Jeffrey Lefstin,- University of California Hastings College , of Law, San Francisco, CA, for amici curiae Jeffrey Lefstin, Peter S. Menell.
John D. Murnane, Fitzpatrick, Celia, Harper & Scinto, New York, N.Y., for amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association. Also represented by Alicia Alexandra Rose Russo, Erin Austin; Dorothy R. Auth, Cadwalader, Wickers-ham & Taft LLP, New York, N.Y.; Irena Royzman, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, N.Y.; David F. Ryan, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Corey A. Salsberg, Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland, .for amicus curiae Novartis AG.
Kevin Edward- Noonan, McDonnell ■Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Chicago, IL, for! amici ■ curiae Twenty-Three Law Professors.
Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for amici curiae Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Marshfield Clinic, MCIS, Inc.’ Also represented by Michelle Marie Umberger, Madison, WI; Michael Robert Osterhoff, Chicago, IL.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom MOORE, Circuit Judge, joins, concurs with the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. DYK, Circuit Judge, concurs with the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by defendants-appellants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC. The petition for rehearing was first referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter, to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. A response was invited by the court and filed by plaintiffs-appellees Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. and Natera, Inc. 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 December 9, 2015.