et al. Archives | IP UPDATE

Bond order doesn’t qualify for immediate appeal

by Vincent Li, PhD | Jan 8, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed strict limits on interlocutory review, finding that a bond order, even one imposing significant financial obligations, is not directly appealable. Micron Technology, Inc., et al. v. Longhorn IP LLC, Case No. 23-2007; Katana Silicon Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-2095 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2025) (Lourie, Schall, Stoll, JJ.)

Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act allows targets of bad faith patent assertions to seek equitable relief, damages, fees, and punitive damages. It also authorizes courts to require the party asserting patent infringement to post a bond equal to estimated litigation costs and potential recovery.

Micron, a semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Boise, Idaho, faced infringement claims from Katana Silicon in the Western District of Texas based on three expired patents. Micron counterclaimed under the Idaho act, alleging bad faith. After transfer of the case to the District of Idaho, Idaho intervened to defend the act’s constitutionality. Micron also sued Longhorn IP (alleged to control Katana) in Idaho state court under the act, seeking a $15 million bond. Longhorn removed that case to federal court. Both Katana and Longhorn moved to dismiss on preemption grounds. Both motions to dismiss were denied, and the district court imposed an $8 million bond on Katana and Longhorn pursuant to the act’s bond provision. Katana and Longhorn directly appealed the bond order.

Since there was no final judgment, the threshold question was jurisdiction. Katana and Longhorn raised three theories under which the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction on the direct appeal.

First, Katana and Longhorn argued that jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which provides appellate jurisdiction on interlocutory orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions. Katana and Longhorn argued that the bond order was “injunctive in nature” and posed irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that a bond is not an injunction and does not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal. The Court found that Katana and Longhorn could seek modification or waiver in district court and that no serious hardship or inability to challenge later was shown.

Second, Katana and Longhorn argued that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, which is “a narrow exception whose reach is limited to trial court orders affecting rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal.” To fall under this exception, an order must satisfy at least the following conditions:

Conclusively determine the disputed question.
Resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.
Be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

The Court concluded that, at a minimum, the second and third conditions were not met. The Court explained that the bond issue was intertwined with the ultimate merits question of the bad faith claims because the same factors that can demonstrate bad faith in the motion to dismiss analysis implicate whether to impose a bond. The Court also explained that nothing prevented Katana [...]

Continue Reading

Striking a chord: Ninth Circuit revives copyright suit over liturgical music

by Hannah Hurley | Sep 11, 2025 | Copyrights

In a copyright case involving liturgical music, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded a district court summary judgment after finding triable issues of fact regarding access and similarity between two musical compositions. The Court upheld the exclusion of the plaintiff’s late-disclosed evidence on access. Ambrosetti v. Or. Cath. Press, et al., Case No. 24-2270 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (Thomas, Smith, Rayes, JJ.)

Vincent Ambrosetti, a prolific composer of sacred music, alleged that Bernadette Farrell copied his 1980 composition “Emmanuel” when writing her 1993 hymn “Christ Be Our Light.” Both works are widely used in Catholic liturgy, and Farrell’s song has become a staple in worship settings around the globe. Ambrosetti claimed that Farrell had access to “Emmanuel” through her association with Oregon Catholic Press (OCP), which published her work and had received copies of Ambrosetti’s music in the 1980s. He also pointed to striking musical similarities between the two compositions.

The district court excluded key evidence (letters from OCP’s then-publisher Owen Alstott acknowledging receipt of Ambrosetti’s music) as a sanction for late disclosure and barred Ambrosetti from arguing that Farrell accessed “Emmanuel” through those letters. Without that theory of access, and finding no striking similarity, the district court granted summary judgment for OCP. Ambrosetti appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the letters, finding that the sanctions were not “claim dispositive” since Ambrosetti could still pursue other theories of access and striking similarity. However, the panel reversed the summary judgment ruling, concluding that triable issues of fact existed as to whether Farrell had access to “Emmanuel” based on her and Alstott’s attendance at music conventions where Ambrosetti performed.

The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether “Emmanuel” and “Christ” were substantially similar. According to Ambrosetti’s expert, 23 similarities in pitch, rhythm, and melodic development supported a finding of substantial similarity, with the district court noting that while individual elements may not be protectable, the unique combination could be. In vacating the summary judgement, the Ninth Circuit noted that summary judgment is “not highly favored” in copyright cases involving musical works where the evidence relied on is primarily competing expert testimony.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the exclusion of Alstott’s letters as a discovery sanction but found a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of access remained, thus precluding summary judgement.

Supreme Court to Consider Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel in Patent Cases

by Amol Parikh | Jan 14, 2021 | Cert Alert, Patents

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review assignor estoppel in patent cases. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-440 (Supr. Ct. Jan. 8, 2021) (certiorari granted). The question presented is:

Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.

Csaba Truckai is the inventor of two patents relating to endometrial ablation that were ultimately acquired by Hologic. Truckai later founded Minerva and developed a system that competed with Hologic’s system. The district court ruled that Minerva could not challenge the validity of the patents because Truckai was barred by assignor estoppel from attacking his own patents. A jury found that Minerva infringed both patents and awarded Hologic more than $4.7 million. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, confirming that assignor estoppel bars an assignor from asserting invalidity of an assigned patent in district court, and “declined Minerva’s invitation to ‘abandon the doctrine’ of assignor estoppel entirely.”