IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Appeal challenging interlocutory order in bad-faith patent case dismissed, (Dec 18, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Appellate court lacked jurisdiction as the district court’s bond order and denial of dismissal were interlocutory and not immediately appealable under any recognized exception.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed, for lack of appellate jurisdiction, interlocutory appeals filed by a patent assertion entity in a state-law bad-faith patent enforcement dispute arising out of an underlying patent infringement action, challenging a district court order that denied its motions to dismiss and required it to post an $8 million bond under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. The court held that the challenged order was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order, did not qualify for review under the collateral order doctrine, and did not warrant extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act (Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, Nos. 23-2007, 23-2095 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellee, Micron Technology, Inc., is a leading semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Boise, Idaho. The State of Idaho intervened as an appellee to defend the validity of its statute regulating bad-faith patent assertions. The defendant/appellant, Longhorn IP LLC, is a patent assertion entity. According to Micron’s pleadings, Longhorn controlled the co-defendant Katana and coordinated its patent enforcement activities.

The underlying infringement dispute involved expired U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,806 (the ’806 patent), 6,352,879 (the ’879 patent), and 6,731,013 (the ’013 patent). Owned by Katana, the patents related to semiconductor device scaling technologies and addressed methods and structures aimed at shrinking semiconductor devices.

In March 2022, Katana filed an infringement action against Micron in the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of the ’806, ’879, and ’013 patents. Micron answered and asserted a counterclaim under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, contending that Katana’s enforcement campaign constituted unlawful bad-faith assertions. Katana moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the Idaho statute was preempted by federal patent law. Following Micron’s motion, the Texas action was transferred to the District of Idaho, where the State of Idaho intervened to defend the statute.

Separately, Micron filed a state-court action in Idaho against Longhorn, asserting the same bad-faith theory and seeking the imposition of a $15 million bond. Longhorn removed the case to federal court and likewise moved to dismiss on preemption grounds. In a consolidated decision, the district court denied both motions to dismiss, held that federal patent law did not preempt the Idaho statute, and ordered Longhorn and Katana to post an $8 million bond pursuant to the statute’s bond provision. Longhorn and Katana appealed that interlocutory order.

Final judgment rule and threshold jurisdiction. The appellate court noted that Federal Circuit jurisdiction generally extends only to “final decisions” that end litigation on the merits, citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945), and the court’s en banc decision in Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The bond order and denial of dismissal did not resolve Micron’s claims or the appellants’ defenses and therefore did not constitute a final judgment. The appellants conceded this point and instead invoked several exceptions to the final judgment rule.

Interlocutory jurisdiction. The court first rejected the appellants’ reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which permits appeals from interlocutory orders granting or denying injunctions. Applying Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F.3d 842 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and the Supreme Court’s framework in Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981), the court held that the bond order was not injunctive in nature and did not have the “practical effect” of an injunction. An injunction compels or restrains conduct under threat of contempt, whereas the Idaho bond merely imposed a procedural precondition that could be revisited or waived by the district court. The appellants also failed to show serious or irreparable harm, as the record contained no evidence that they were unable to pay the bond or continue litigating. Because immediate appeal was not the only avenue for relief, interlocutory jurisdiction was unavailable.

Collateral order doctrine. The panel next considered and rejected jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Stressing the doctrine’s narrow scope, as reiterated in Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (1985), the court held that the bond order failed at least two required elements. The bond determination was not completely separate from the merits because it depended on the same statutory factors governing liability for bad-faith patent assertions. Moreover, the order was not effectively unreviewable after final judgment, since any improperly imposed bond could be repaid with interest, consistent with Digit. Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1992). Allowing immediate review would invite piecemeal appeals contrary to judicial efficiency.

Mandamus and pendent jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also declined to exercise mandamus jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, citing Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004). Because the appellants could seek waiver or modification of the bond in the district court, they had not shown the absence of other adequate means of relief. Finally, the court refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the denial of the motions to dismiss, explaining that pendent review presupposes a properly appealable interlocutory order, which was lacking here.

Thus, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals in their entirety and expressly declined to reach the merits of the preemption challenge or the appropriateness of the $8 million bond.

The Case is Nos. 23-2007, 23-2095.

Judge: Lourie, A.

Attorneys: Andrew Dufresne (Perkins Coie LLP) for Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC. Scott W. Breedlove (Carter Arnett PLLC) for Longhorn IP LLC. Michael Zarian, Idaho Office of the Attorney General.

Companies: Micron Technology, Inc.; Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.; Micron Technology Texas, LLC; Longhorn IP LLC

MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews IdahoNews