IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
US Court of Appeals
Subscribe to US Court of Appeals's Posts

Skinny label: Supreme Court to weigh inducement claims against generics

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether a generic drugmaker that fully carves out a patented use from its label can nonetheless be held liable for induced infringement based solely on marketing its product as a generic version of a branded drug and referencing public information about the branded product, without promoting the patented use.

In Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharmaceutical USA, Case No. 23-1169 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that Amarin adequately pleaded induced infringement based on allegations that Hikma marketed its product as a “generic” version of Vascepa and cited publicly available information about Vascepa, even though Hikma’s label carved out the patented indication pursuant to Section viii of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Hikma argued that the Federal Circuit’s ruling threatened the statutory balance struck by Hatch-Waxman by exposing skinny-label generic manufacturers to inducement liability based on conduct unrelated to the carved-out use. According to Hikma, permitting inducement claims under these circumstances would effectively nullify Hatch-Waxman Section viii by allowing plaintiffs to rely on generic marketing statements that do not instruct or encourage use of the patented method.

The questions presented are:

  • When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?
  • Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?


read more

Hot out of the oven: Trademark limits on pizza-inspired names

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a preliminary injunction barring the use of PIZZA PUFF, concluding that the trademark owner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the term was likely generic and, in any event, was descriptively and fairly used. Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3317; 25-1072; -1076; -1112 (7th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Scudder, St. Eve, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)

Illinois Tamale Company (Iltaco), a Chicago-based food company, has sold its signature “Pizza Puff” since 1976, distributing the product nationwide alongside other “Puff”-branded products. Iltaco owns federal trademark registrations for PIZZA PUFF (registered in 2009) and PUFF (registered in 2022).

In March 2024, Little Caesars introduced “Crazy Puffs,” small baked dough cups filled with pizza ingredients. The product launched as part of Little Caesars’ long-running “Crazy” line and was marketed prominently under the Little Caesars name, logo, and orange trade dress. Little Caesars secured its own federal registration for CRAZY PUFFS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified no conflicting marks during examination.

Following the product launch, Iltaco sent a cease-and-desist letter claiming that CRAZY PUFFS and the phrase “4 Hand-Held Pizza Puffs” infringed its trademarks. When Little Caesars declined to change its marketing, Iltaco sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition and sought a preliminary injunction. The district court issued a split ruling, enjoining Little Caesars from using PIZZA PUFF but permitting continued use of CRAZY PUFFS and PUFF. Both parties appealed.

The Seventh Circuit found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the protectability of PIZZA PUFF. The Court explained that rather than asking whether competitors could offer similar products without using the term, trademark protectability turns on the “primary significance” test, which is whether consumers primarily understand the term as a brand name or as the common name of a product. Because generic terms can never function as trademarks, the Court focused on evidence of consumer perception.

Applying that framework, the Seventh Circuit found substantial evidence that PIZZA PUFF was generic:

  • More than 80% of surveyed consumers viewed the term as referring to a product category rather than a brand.
  • Dictionary definitions treated the term generically.
  • Third-party filings and industry usage consistently employed the phrase as a common name.

This evidence rebutted the presumption of validity afforded by Iltaco’s federal registration, and Iltaco failed to demonstrate a likelihood of proving distinctiveness at trial. The Court therefore concluded that Iltaco did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and reversed the preliminary injunction barring Little Caesars’ use of PIZZA PUFF.

The Seventh Circuit further found that even if PIZZA PUFF were distinctive, Iltaco still could not obtain injunctive relief because Little Caesars was likely to prevail on a fair-use defense. The Court emphasized that fair use requires only descriptive, good-faith use, and not a perfect fit between the challenged term and the product. Here, PIZZA PUFF plausibly described Little Caesars’ light, pizza-filled food [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Baseball was very good to Roberto: Lanham Act permits claims against government officials in personal capacity

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

In a decision addressing the intersection of trademark law, sovereign immunity, and constitutional takings, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit partially revived Lanham Act claims brought by the heirs of baseball legend Roberto Clemente against senior officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. While affirming dismissal of claims against the Commonwealth itself and related public entities, the Court concluded that certain Lanham Act claims against individual government officials in their personal capacities were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at the pleading stage. Clemente Props., Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, Case No. 23-1922, 2026 WL 125574 (1st Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Barron, Lipez, Thompson, JJ.)

The plaintiffs, Clemente’s sons and affiliated entities, alleged that Commonwealth officials improperly used Clemente’s name and likeness on commemorative license plates and registration tags without authorization. Proceeds from the program were directed toward a public initiative intended to replace an earlier Clemente-founded project. Plaintiffs claimed trademark infringement, false endorsement, false advertising, and dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants moved to dismiss on immunity grounds and for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions in full. Plaintiffs appealed.

The First Circuit reversed in part. The Court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the use of Clemente’s name and image was not “in connection with” goods or services under the Lanham Act. The Court explained that commemorative license plates and tags qualify as goods, and the fact that they were issued by a government entity did not remove them from the statute’s commercial scope. The Court also pointed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark ID Manual, which expressly recognizes license plates as registrable goods, and found no persuasive basis for excluding fundraising activities supporting the Roberto Clemente Sports District Fund from trademark scrutiny.

The First Circuit further concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged commercial injury within the Lanham Act’s zone of interests and plausibly pleaded likelihood of confusion, including the mistaken impression that the Clemente family endorsed or financially benefited from the initiative. Accordingly, dismissal of Lanham Act claims under Section 32 (trademark infringement), Section 43(a) (false endorsement), and Section 43(c) (dilution) was improper with regard to officials sued in their personal capacities.

Sovereign immunity remained a shield for the Commonwealth, the Convention Center District Authority, and officials sued in their official capacities. However, the First Circuit concluded that qualified immunity did not bar the personal-capacity Lanham Act claims at the pleading stage and thus vacated dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the false advertising claim, determining that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants’ statements constituted commercial advertising or promotion as required under Section 43(a)(1)(B). The Court also affirmed dismissal of the Takings Clause claim, concluding that alleged infringements of intangible intellectual property do not support a categorical physical-taking theory and cannot be analyzed using frameworks applicable to physical occupation or appropriation.

Finally, the First Circuit deemed waived any [...]

Continue Reading



read more

DMCA safe harbor is deep: Plaintiffs need to get specific

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for YouTube, finding that the company was protected by Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In doing so, the Court joined the Second and Ninth Circuits in requiring knowledge of specific infringing material, not generalized awareness of infringement on a platform, to defeat safe-harbor protection. Athos Overseas Ltd. Corp. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-13156 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2026) (Pryor, Jordan, Marcus, JJ.)

Athos owns copyrights in classic Mexican and Latin American films and sued YouTube for hosting unauthorized uploads of its works. YouTube invoked the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor, which shields service providers from liability for infringing material stored at the direction of users if certain statutory conditions are met. Athos did not dispute that YouTube expeditiously removed content identified in valid takedown notices. Instead, Athos argued that YouTube’s internal technologies provided it with actual or “red flag” knowledge of additional infringing copies beyond those specifically identified, and that YouTube’s content moderation and curation tools gave it the “right and ability to control” infringing activity.”

The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments. Echoing Viacom Int’l v. YouTube and UMG Recordings v. Shelter Cap. Partners, the Court explained that Section 512(c) requires knowledge of specific instances of infringement. A service provider’s duty to act arises only when it knows which particular material is infringing, because expeditious removal is possible only with such specificity. Since YouTube’s tools do not automatically identify legally infringing content, and because Athos provided no evidence that YouTube knew which specific videos were infringing, there was no triable issue on knowledge.

The Court rejected Athos’ argument that YouTube’s ability to recommend videos, remove content, or set platform policies constituted the type of control that strips safe-harbor protection. The DMCA requires “something more” than ordinary content moderation, such as substantial influence over or inducement of specific infringing activity. Because Athos failed to establish such control, the Eleventh Circuit did not reach the question of whether YouTube derived a direct financial benefit from infringement.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for YouTube, concluding that it remained entitled to Section 512(c) safe-harbor protection.



read more

Federal question? You can’t hypothetically fair use your way into federal court

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

Addressing the limits of federal jurisdiction, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the fair use exception in federal copyright law required disclosure of a student survey under Kentucky’s open records statute. The Court determined that neither the hypothetical presence of a federal fair use defense nor the possibility of future copyright litigation was sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. Stovall v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Case No. 25-5357 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) (Sutton, Boggs, Bloomekatz, JJ.)

Miranda Stovall, a Kentucky resident, learned that Jefferson County Public Schools planned to administer a mental health survey to students. She requested a copy of the survey under the Kentucky Open Records Act. The school district denied the request, citing an exemption for records prohibited from disclosure by federal law and asserting that the survey was copyrighted intellectual property of its publisher, NCS Pearson.

Stovall sued in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that that disclosure of the survey would be permitted under the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine. NCS Pearson moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court granted that motion. Stovall appealed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the established “arising under” framework used to assess federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1338. Under that framework, a claim may arise under federal copyright law only if:

  • It is created by the Copyright Act.
  • It is a state law claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial copyright issue.
  • It asserts rights equivalent to those protected by copyright and is therefore preempted.

The Court concluded that none of these categories applied.

First, the Copyright Act did not create Stovall’s cause of action; her asserted entitlement to inspect or copy the survey arose solely under the Kentucky Open Records Act.

Second, although copyright law was implicated, it entered the case only as a potential defense to the school district’s disclosure obligation. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that federal jurisdiction cannot be manufactured by anticipating a federal defense, even where the defense involves copyright fair use. Because federal copyright law was not an essential element of Stovall’s state law claim, the case did not “arise under” federal law.

Third, the Sixth Circuit rejected Stovall’s argument that her claim was effectively a copyright dispute because it might provoke an infringement action by NCS Pearson. The Kentucky Open Records Act claim did not resemble an infringement action and did not seek to vindicate rights equivalent to those protected by the Copyright Act. Accordingly, it was not preempted and did not fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that Stovall also lacked Article III standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The Court explained that a speculative fear of future litigation does not create the “substantial controversy” required to establish a justiciable case or controversy. Stovall had not alleged any prior infringement claim, threat of suit, or concrete indication that NCS Pearson intended to sue [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Expert had firm grip on Rule 702

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an exclusion of expert testimony and grant of judgment as a matter of law, finding that the district court improperly conflated admissibility with credibility and weight of the evidence. Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies, et al., Case Nos. 023-2226; -2234 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2026) (Prost, Taranto, Stark, JJ.) (Prost, J., dissenting).

Mark Barry owns patents covering surgical techniques and tools for treating spinal deformities. Barry sued DePuy alleging that DePuy induced surgeons to infringe the patents. The patents describe tools and methods, including levers, for applying force to vertebrae to realign the spinal column. Two of the patents required the presence of a “handle means,” which the district court construed as “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand.”

At trial, Barry relied on two experts. His infringement expert, Dr. Walid Yassir, testified that DePuy’s accused tools could be assembled and used in infringing configurations and that certain components (or linked assemblies) constituted the claimed “handle means” under the court’s construction. Barry also offered expert testimony from Dr. David Neal, who conducted a surgeon survey to estimate how often DePuy’s tools were used in infringing configurations, which in turn supported Barry’s damages case.

Although the district court had denied DePuy’s pretrial Daubert motions regarding Barry’s experts, it reversed course mid-trial. The court excluded Yassir’s testimony on the ground that he contradicted the court’s claim construction by equating “handle means” with parts that must be grasped during assembly. The court also excluded Neal’s survey testimony, concluding that methodological flaws, such as nonprobability sampling and alleged defects in question design, rendered the survey unreliable. Having excluded both experts, the court granted DePuy judgment as a matter of law. Barry appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed that expert opinion that contradicts a court’s claim construction would not be helpful to a jury and should be excluded under Rule 702. The Court found, however, that Yassir did not contradict the court’s construction but instead applied it in a manner a reasonable factfinder could accept or reject – a disputed application that DePuy challenged on cross-examination. However, DePuy did not object to Yassir’s direct testimony despite having secured a pretrial ruling barring evidence inconsistent with the claim construction.

The Federal Circuit concluded that Yassir’s testimony did not contradict the court’s claim construction but rather exposed areas of tension and potential weakness in how Yassir applied that construction to the accused devices. The Court explained that DePuy’s questioning elicited testimony about what could constitute a “handle means” that went to the credibility and persuasiveness of Yassir’s opinions, not their admissibility. The Court rejected the district court’s reliance on isolated testimonial snippets divorced from their surrounding explanations, noting that ordinary ambiguities and concessions revealed through adversarial questioning are for the jury to evaluate and do not convert an expert’s application of a claim construction into an impermissible contradiction warranting exclusion under Rule 702.

The Federal Circuit likewise held that the district court abused [...]

Continue Reading



read more

All rise: Here comes the real judge

by | Jan 22, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register trademark applications (over oppositions) for two character marks and a design mark based on the Board’s finding of likelihood of confusion with the common law rights of a world-famous baseball player and major league baseball’s players association  as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with trademark law. Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, Case No. 23-2073 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Hughes, Freeman, Lourie, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Michael Chisena, acting pro se, sought trademark registration for two word marks, ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and a design mark featuring a baseball field with a superimposed scale of justice and judge’s gavel (pictured below) (Chisena marks) for use in connection with “clothing, namely t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps.”

Source: Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, Case No. 23-2073 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026), Slip Op at 2.

Chisena filed intent to use applications and alleged that the constructive use priority date for the word marks was July 14, 2017, and for the design mark it was October 12, 2017. The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and Aaron Judge, a superstar Yankees outfielder and team captain (collectively, appellees), filed Notices of Opposition against registration of the marks, which the Board consolidated into a single proceeding.

Judge is a well-known baseball player whose rise to fame prompted the commercialization of judicial slogans and insignia in connection with his baseball career. The appellees alleged that the Chisena marks would likely cause confusion with their marks, which include ALL RISE and certain judicial symbols. They argued that they had common law trademark rights that predated Chisena’s alleged priority dates. The Board found that the appellees established priority against the Chisena marks and that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks and therefore refused to register the Chisena marks. Chisena appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s priority decisions were supported by substantial evidence that appellees’ marks were used in commerce prior to the Chisena marks’ priority date. The Court concluded that the priority dates for the Chisena marks were the constructive use filing dates since Chisena did not use the marks in commerce until after he filed the applications. The Court further relied on licensed products bearing judicial slogans, phrases, symbols, and personal indicia related to Judge used as early as June 2017 in holding that appellees’ common law trademark rights predated the Chisena marks’ priority dates.

Chisena argued that appellees did not adequately identify the specific marks at issue in their Notices of Opposition. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the notices provided fair notice because they adequately claimed ownership of the marks that served as the basis for the opposition and the basis for appellees’ priority claims.

Chisena argued that the appellees’ [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Top Gun and all that jazz: “Substantial similarity” in the Ninth Circuit

by | Jan 15, 2026 |

Two January 2026 decisions from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirm that copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in protectable expression, proven through both extrinsic and intrinsic tests. Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp. demonstrates strict application of filtration principles and the constraints of selection-and-arrangement theories at summary judgment. Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, by contrast, underscores the central and increasingly contested role of the intrinsic test at trial, even when extrinsic similarity evidence is substantial. Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp., Case No. 24-2897 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026) (Hurwitz, Miller, Sung, JJ.); Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al., Case No. 24-3367 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026) (Wardlaw, Mendoza Jr., Johnstone, JJ.) (per curiam) (Wardlaw, Johnstone, JJ., concurring).

The extrinsic test examines objective similarities in protectable expression after excluding unprotectable elements while the intrinsic test asks whether an ordinary reasonable observer would perceive substantial similarity in expression without expert guidance.

Yonay v. Paramount Pictures – “Top Guns”

Ehud Yonay authored and owns a copyright in “Top Guns,” a 1983 magazine article about the US Navy Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as “Top Gun.” Yonay sued Paramount Pictures, alleging that its 2022 film Top Gun: Maverick infringed that copyright. The district court granted summary judgment for Paramount, and Yonay appealed.

The Ninth Circuit applied the extrinsic test and rigorously filtered out unprotectable elements, including factual material about the Top Gun program, stock scenes, and high-level themes. The Court concluded that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs existed only at an abstract level and did not involve protectable expression. Although “Top Guns” contains vivid prose and an innovative narrative structure that qualify as protectable expression, none of that expression appeared in the film. The Court explained that even under a selection-and-arrangement theory, courts must filter out unprotectable elements and determine whether the works share a protectable “pattern, synthesis, or design.” After doing so, the Court concluded that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs consisted of unprotectable facts and ideas rather than original expression.

Because the intrinsic test is reserved exclusively for the trier of fact, only the extrinsic test was relevant at the summary judgment stage. The Ninth Circuit also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert, whose analysis failed to adequately filter out unprotectable elements and therefore relied heavily on similarities in facts and abstract ideas, rendering his opinions unhelpful.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Paramount, holding that Top Gun: Maverick was not substantially similar to the article “Top Guns.”

Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al. – Miles Davis photograph

Jeffrey Sedlik owns a copyright in his photograph of Miles Davis. Sedlik sued Katherine Von Drachenberg and her tattoo parlor, High Voltage Tattoo, alleging copyright infringement based on Von Drachenberg’s use of the photograph as a reference to create a tattoo depicting Davis’s likeness, the creation of a preliminary sketch, and the posting of related images on social media. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Deadlines and discretion: Appeal trips over the clock

by | Jan 15, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part an appeal of an International Trade Commission decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s issuance of a limited exclusion order against one set of respondents and dismissed the complainant’s appeal of the Commission’s no‑violation finding against another set of respondents as time‑barred under the statute. Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 2024-1300 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Stoll, Lourie, Chun, JJ.)

Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that multiple respondents violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the US footwear that infringed its registered trademarks (the 3D marks), which are associated with certain features of Crocs’ Classic Clog shoes. Crocs’ complaint requested relief in the form of a general exclusion order (GEO), or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order (LEO). Three respondents participated in an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge in September 2022 (active respondents) while four respondents were in default and waived their rights to appear, to be served with documents, and to contest the allegations (defaulting respondents). More than 20 other respondents were terminated based on consent orders or settlement agreements.

In a September 14, 2023, Notice of Final Determination and accompanying opinion, the Commission found no violation by the active respondents, concluding that Crocs had not established likelihood of confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D marks. The Commission, presuming the facts alleged in the complaint as true and finding that public interest factors do not preclude relief, also issued an LEO against the defaulting respondents, barring them from importing the infringing shoes.

On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal challenging the Commission’s no-violation finding as to the active respondents and its decision to issue only an LEO against the defaulting respondents rather than the GEO that Crocs requested. The Commission countered that Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents was time-barred by Section 337(c), which required the appeal to be filed by November 13, 2023, and argued that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the defaulting respondents.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents as untimely. The Court explained that when the Commission issues a single decision that contains a no-violation finding against one set of respondents and enters an exclusion order against another set of respondents, each ruling carries its own deadline for appeal. In this case, Crocs’ December 22, 2023, appeal was time-barred under Section 337(c) because the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal on the no-violation finding expired on November 13, 2023. The Court also considered and upheld the Commission’s LEO order, concluding that the Commission had articulated a sufficient basis for the remedy and that its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.



read more

Bond order doesn’t qualify for immediate appeal

by | Jan 8, 2026 |

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



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES