Case Name: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-17
Citations: 805 F.3d 1382
Docket Number: No. 2014-1492
Parties: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
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: 805
Pages: 1382–1383

Head Matter:
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 2014-1492.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 17, 2015.
Patrick Joseph McElhinny, K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Mark G. Knedeisen, Christopher Michael Verdini; Theodore J. Angelis, Douglas B. Greenswag, David T. McDonald, Seattle, WA; E. Joshua Rosen-kranz, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, N.Y.; Eric Shumsky, Washington, DC; Bas De Blank, Menlo Park, -CA.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, N.Y., filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Edward J. DeFranco, Joseph Milowic III, Cleland B. Welton II; Susan Rachel Estrieh, Michael Thomas Zeller, Los Angeles, CA; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Redwood Shores, CA; Derek Shaffer, Washington, DC; Roy Wang, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Santa Clara, CA.
Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for amici curiae Broadcom Corporation, Xilinx, Inc. Also represented by Kenneth J. Halpern, Palo Alto, CA.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Carnegie Mellon's petition for rehearing en banc is denied in part and held in abeyance in part. The court will hold in abeyance any decision on the request for rehearing en banc with respect to the first issue raised in Carnegie Mellon's petition, which seeks review of the panel's ruling on the enhancement of damages issue. The court will hold Carnegie Mellon's petition as to that issue pending the Supreme Court's decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2014) cert. granted, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 356, 193 L.Ed.3d 289 (2015) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 782 F.3d 649 (Fed.Cir.2015) cert. granted, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 356, 193 L.Ed.3d 289 (2015). Carnegie Mellon's petition for rehearing en banc is otherwise denied. Marvell's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. A partial mandate will issue returning the case to the district court, which shall have discretion to determine how and when best to handle the proceedings on remand.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Carnegie Mellon's petition for rehearing en banc is denied in part and held in abeyance in part.
(2) Marvell's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied
(3)A partial mandate will issue on November 24, 2015.