
    BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. and David Goldfarb, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, and C.R. Bard, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/CounterclaimantAppellant.
    No. 2010-1510.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    June 14, 2012.
    John C. O’Quinn, Nathan S. Mammen, Gregory G. Garre, William H. Burgess, Dennis J. Abdelnour, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maximilian A. Grant, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Steven C. Cherny, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, John L. Strand, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA, Amanda Hollis, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, Andrew M. Federhar, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees and Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee.
    Frank P. Porcelli, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, John S. Campbell, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Newark, DE, James W. Gould, Harry C. Marcus, Steven M. Purdy, Joseph A. Farco, Locke, Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP, New York, NY, David H. Pfeffer, Boca Raton, FL, Richard G. Taranto, Farr & Taranto, Washington, DC, John A. Dragseth, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Minneapolis, MN, Matthew K. Blackburn, Locke, Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP, San Francisco, CA, William J. Maledon, Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, O’MALLEY, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       Judge Newman does not join in the denial of en banc consideration with respect to the issue of joint inventorship.
    
    
      
       Judge Gajarsa participated in only the decision for panel rehearing.
    
    
      
       Judge Moore did not participate in any of the proceedings.
    
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This case was decided by a panel of three judges. A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. A response was invited by the court and filed by Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., David Goldfarb, M.D., and C.R. Bard, Inc.

The petition for rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and amici curiae brief were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll having been requested and taken,

It Is OrdeRed That:

(1)The court denies en banc review but grants rehearing en banc for the limited purpose of authorizing the panel to revise the portion of its opinion addressing willfulness.

(2) The judgment of the court entered on February 10, 2012, and reported at 670 F.3d 1171, is hereby vacated in part, and the opinion of the court accompanying the judgment is modified, in accordance with the panel opinion accompanying this order.

(3) The en banc court returns this ap- • peal to the merits panel, which issues the revised opinion that accompanies this order.  