Case Name: RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Thomas J. Shaw, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-31
Citations: 659 F.3d 1369
Docket Number: No. 2010-1402
Parties: RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Thomas J. Shaw, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, PLAGER , LOURIE, BRYSON, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 659
Pages: 1369–1376

Head Matter:
RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Thomas J. Shaw, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2010-1402.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Oct. 31, 2011.
Roy W. Hardin, Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, LLP, of Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Cynthia Keely Timms and Mark R. Backofen.
William F. Lee, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Lisa J. Pirozzolo; and William G. McElwain and Heath A. Brooks, of Washington, DC.
Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, PLAGER , LOURIE, BRYSON, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Judge Plager participated in the decision for panel rehearing.

Opinion:
MOORE, Circuit Judge with whom RADER, Chief Judge, joins, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendanb-Appellant. 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 Plaintiffs-Appellees for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition of Plaintiffs-Appellees for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on November 7, 2011.