On April 2, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined, without explanation, a petition to rehear a case in which the court affirmed a district court decision awarding the plaintiff more than $240 million for alleged patent infringement. The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging the appeals court to grant rehearing. The case involved Word, Microsoft’s flagship word-processing software; the district judge held that a minute portion of Word infringed one of the plaintiff’s patents. WLF argued that the huge damages award came about because the judge failed to exclude unsupported and outlandish expert testimony regarding damages supposedly suffered by the plaintiff. WLF argued that judges are required to perform a more rigorous “gatekeeping” function that ensures that “junk science” is excluded from the courtroom. WLF also asserted that the appeals court panel erred in declining to rule on Microsoft’s claim that the damages award was excessive.