On January 22, 2010, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, urging it to grant rehearing in a case in which the appeals court affirmed a district court decision awarding the plaintiff more than $240 million for alleged patent infringement. The case involves 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; WLF said that there was no merit in the panel’s finding that Microsoft waived that claim.