Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD.,
MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2014-1492
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania in No. 2:09-cv-00290-
NBF, Judge Nora Barry Fischer.
______________________
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
REHEARING EN BANC
______________________
P ATRICK J OSEPH MC E LHINNY , K&L Gates LLP, Pitts-
burgh, PA, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for
plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by MARK G.
K NEDEISEN, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL VERDINI; T HEODORE J.
ANGELIS , D OUGLAS B. G REENSWAG, D AVID T. MCD ONALD,
Seattle, WA; E. J OSHUA R OSENKRANZ, Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY; ERIC SHUMSKY , Washing-
ton, DC; BAS DE BLANK, Menlo Park, CA.

-- 1 of 3 --

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
GROUP , LTD.
2
K ATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, filed a petition for panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendants-
appellants. Also represented by EDWARD J. D EF RANCO,
J OSEPH MILOWIC III, CLELAND B. WELTON II; S USAN
RACHEL ESTRICH , MICHAEL T HOMAS ZELLER , Los Angeles,
CA; K EVIN P.B. J OHNSON, Redwood Shores, CA; D EREK
SHAFFER, Washington, DC; ROY WANG, Marvell Semicon-
ductor, Inc., Santa Clara, CA.
D AN L. BAGATELL , Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for
amici curiae Broadcom Corporation, Xilinx, Inc. Also
represented by K ENNETH J. HALPERN, Palo Alto, CA.
______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, NEWMAN, L OURIE, D YK, M OORE,
O’M ALLEY , REYNA, WALLACH , T ARANTO, CHEN, H UGHES ,
and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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, No. 14-1513, 2015 WL 3883472 (U.S.
Oct. 19, 2015) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 782 F.3d
649 (Fed. Cir. 2015) cert. granted, No. 14-1520, 2015 WL
3883499 (U.S. Oct. 19, 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

-- 2 of 3 --

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
GROUP, LTD.
3
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.
F OR THE COURT
November 17, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

-- 3 of 3 --