Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2007.OPINION.12-18-2025_2621143.pdf"><em>Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC</em> and <em>Katana Silicon Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.</em>, Nos.  2023‑2007, ‑2095 (Dec. 18, 2025)</a>, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  

core/paragraph

Katana sued Micron, an Idaho company, in the Western District of Texas for the infringement of three expired semiconductor patents. Micron counterclaimed under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act and Katana moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption. After the case was transferred to the District of Idaho, Micron sued Katana’s parent, Longhorn, for the same bad faith conduct. Micron sought a $15 million bond under the Act, which allows courts to impose a bond for litigation costs and damages upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of success. The district court determined that the Act is not preempted and imposed an $8 million bond. Appellants sought immediate review.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s bond order was not&nbsp;a final judgment and none of Appellants’ theories supported interlocutory jurisdiction.

First, the bond order was not an&nbsp;immediately appealable injunction&nbsp;under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. It did not have the “practical effect” of an injunction, particularly because the Act provides a mechanism to waive or modify the bond based on available assets or good cause. Appellants failed to demonstrate serious or irreparable harm because the record contained no evidence that they were unable to pay or that litigation would be foreclosed absent immediate review.

Second, the bond order was not immediately appealable under the&nbsp;collateral order doctrine. The bond determination was intertwined with the merits of Micron’s state‑law bad faith claims, which relied on the same statutory factors, and thus was not a “completely separate” claim. The bond order would also be effectively reviewable&nbsp;after a final judgment because it could be remedied by repayment with interest if imposed in error.

Third,&nbsp;mandamus&nbsp;relief was unavailable because Appellants had other adequate means to seek relief—namely, pursuing waiver or modification of the bond in the district court. Because the bond order itself was not appealable, the Court declined to exercise&nbsp;pendent appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, it did not reach the federal preemption issue or whether the district court abused its discretion in requiring the $8 million bond.

CAFC Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal of $8M Bond Under Idaho Bad Faith Patent Act

Related Professionals