
    Triantafyllos TAFAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, and SmithKline Beecham Corporation (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline), SmithKline Beecham PLC, and Glaxo Group Limited (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline), Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David J. KAPPOS, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 2008-1352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2009.
    Daniel B. Ravicher, Software Freedom Law Center, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae, AARP.
    Robert Greene Sterne, Kenneth C. Bass III, Mark Fox Evens, Jon E. Wright, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, Amber-wave Systems Corporation.
    Jerry R. Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, Dallas, TX, Teresa Stanek Rea, Cro-well & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, American Intellectual Property Law Association.
    Arthur O. Klein, Klein & Vibber P.C., Westport, CT, for Amicus Curiae, Arthur O. Klein.
    Mark A. Lemley, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, for Amicus Curiae, Arti K. Rai.
    Ronald A. Schechter, David R. Marsh, Matthew M. Shultz, Kristan Lynn Lans-bery, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, Biotechnology Industry Organization.
    Joshua Waldman, Scott R. McIntosh, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, James A. Toupin, Stephen Walsh, William G. Jenks, Sydney O. Johnson Jr., William Lamarca, Raymond T. Chen, Janet A. Gongola, Nathan K. Kelley, Jennifer McDowell, Patent & Trademark Office, Arlington, VA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Heath W. Hoglund, Dolby Laboratories, Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae, Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
    Kevin Thomas Kramer, Scott Jeffrey Pivnick, Stephanie Francoise Goeller, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, Vincent Napoleon; Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Curiae, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    Buckmaster De Wolf, General Electric Company, Fairfield, CT, for Amicus Curiae, General Electric Company.
    F. Christopher Mizzo, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Daniel Sean Trainor, Scott M. Abeles, William Bestani, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Carter G. Phillips, Jeffrey P. Kush-an, David L. Fitzgerald, Virginia A. Seitz, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, John M. Desmarais, Peter J. Armenio, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Sherry Knowles, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA, Steven J. Moore, James Edward Nealon, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Stamford, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Paul H. Berghoff, Jeffrey A. Steck, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert, Chicago, IL, Robert P. Hayter, United Technologies Corporation, Hartford, CT, Steven W. Miller, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH, for Amicus Curiae, Intellectual Property Owners Association.
    John M. Neukom, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Matthew C. Rainey, Intellectual Ventures, LLC, Bellevue, WA, for Amicus Curiae, Intellectual Ventures, LLC.
    Charles E. Miller, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Mark J. Abate, Goodwin Procter LLP, Charles A. Weiss, Anthony Giaccio, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, Bridgette Y. Ahn, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae, New York Intellectual Property Law Association.
    Colby B. Springer, Tam .Thanh Pham, Carr & Ferrell LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Amicus Curiae, Pax Streamline, Inc.
    Randolph D. Moss, Donald R. Steinberg, David W. Ogden, Anne K. Small, Brian M. Boynton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
    Michael A. Carvin, Blaney Harper, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Daniel J. Po-peo, Richard Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, Washington Legal Foundation.
    R. Carl Moy, Jay Alan Erstling, William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN, Charles Gorenstein, Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Ami-cus Curiae, William Mitchell College of Law Intellectual Property Inst.
   ORDER

Upon consideration of the court’s July 28, 2009, 831 Fed.Appx. 748, order granting the parties’ joint motion for a stay of en banc proceedings,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Absent further order of this court, the appellants’ additional en banc brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order. Absent further order of this court, the parties shall file the required copies of their original briefs within 60 days of the date of filing of this order. The remaining brief due dates should be calculated in compliance with this court’s July 6, 2009, 328 Fed.Appx. 658, order.  