- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Automotive and Retail & Leisure industries
- within Intellectual Property and Criminal Law topic(s)
Micron Tech., Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, 2025 WL 3672528 (Fed Cir. Dec. 18, 2025)
Instead of decking the halls for Christmas, the Federal Circuit decked Longhorn by dismissing its appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Idaho, and over 30 other states , have taken patent law conduct into their own hands, enacting legislation to punish bad faith patent litigation. Recently, the Federal Circuit rejected a patentee's appeal of denial of a motion to dismiss a counterclaim and imposition of a bond based on Idaho's law because it did not have jurisdiction because no final decision had been rendered.
Katana Silicon Technologies—allegedly controlled by Longhorn IP (collectively “L&K”)—sued Micron Technology (“Micron”) for infringement of three expired semiconductor patents in the Western District of Texas. Micron counterclaimed under Idaho's Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act (“Act”) and successfully moved to transfer the case to the District of Idaho. The District of Idaho denied L&K's motions to dismiss Micron's counterclaim under federal preemption, found that Micron had stated a plausible claim under the Act, and required L&K post an $8Mbond. L&K immediately appealed the order and bond requirement to the Federal Circuit.
The Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act renders it unlawful to make a bad faith assertion of patent infringement in a demand letter, complaint, or other communication. Remedies include equitable relief, damages, costs, fees, and punitive damages. If the court finds that the target has a reasonable likelihood of proving a bad faith patent assertion, the court must require the patentee to post a bond equal to a good faith estimate of the cost to litigate the case and the amount the target is reasonably likely to recover under the Act. Micron sought a $15M bond, and the court set an $8M bond.
To convince the Federal Circuit it had jurisdiction, L&K turned to all the theories at once, arguing: (1) the bond order is effectively an injunction; (2) the collateral order doctrine applies; and (3) mandamus was appropriate. The Federal Circuit found that the bond was neither an injunction, nor tantamount to one, and regardless L&K never established inability to post the bond. It rejected the collateral order theory because the factors for requiring the bond also went to the merits of Micron's counterclaim, and the bond remained remediable after final judgment. The court further found mandamus inappropriate because L&K could have challenged the bond in district court by requesting waiver. Lacking jurisdiction over the bond, the court found it also lacked pendent jurisdiction over the motion to dismiss.
L&K likely did not plan to face down Idaho state law when it waltzed to Waco with its lawsuit, but this is likely to be an increasingly common situation. More states enact similar protections against bad faith litigation with every passing year, and patentees, even NPEs, should realize that their targets can hit back.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
