UNILOC USA V MICROSOFT, No. 10-1035 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 4, 2011.

Download PDF

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant. __________________________ 2010-1035, -1055 __________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island in case no. 03-CV-0440, Judge William E. Smith. ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC __________________________ Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. O MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. PER CURIAM. UNILOC USA v. MICROSOFT 2 ORDER A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendant-Cross Appellant. The court granted leave to file a brief amici curiae to ten damages experts, all appearing pro se. The petition for panel rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and brief amici curiae 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-Appellants for panel rehearing is denied. (2) The petition of Plaintiffs-Appellants for rehearing en banc is denied. (3) The mandate of the court will issue on May 23, 2011. FOR THE COURT May 16, 2011 Date cc: Donald R. Dunner, Esq. Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esq Michael J. Chapman /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.