Case Name: MERCK & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-21
Citations: 405 F.3d 1338
Docket Number: No. 04-1005
Parties: MERCK & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 405
Pages: 1338–1339

Head Matter:
MERCK & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-1005.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 21, 2005.
John F. Lynch, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Houston, Texas, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the petition were Nicolas G. Barzoukas and Richard L. Stanley. Of counsel on the petition were Paul D. Matu-kaitis, Edward W. Murray and Gerard M. Devlin, Merck & Co., Inc., of Rahway, New Jersey.
James Galbraith, Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, New York, filed a response to the petition for defendant-appellant. With him on the response were Maria Luisa Pálmese and William G. James, II.
William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, filed an amicus curiae brief for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. With him on the brief was John M. Golden. Of counsel on the brief was William G. McElwain, of Washington, DC.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
NEWMAN and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, would rehear the appeal en banc.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge, with whom MICHEL, Chief Judge, and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, join, dissents in a separate opinion.
SCHALL, Circuit Judge,
did not participate in the vote.
ORDER
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellant. The petition for rehearing was referred first to the merits panel that heard the appeal. Thereafter, the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and the amicus curiae brief 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 panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition for rehearing én banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on April 28, 2005.
. An amicus curiae brief was filed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.