IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Immediate appeal allowed for California anti-SLAPP denials, (Oct 15, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

The Federal Circuit held that anti-SLAPP rulings are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, vacating a district court’s refusal to strike state law claims tied to allegedly misappropriated semiconductor technology disclosed in patent applications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion under California law is immediately appealable, marking the first time the court has extended interlocutory review to such orders. The panel vacated a federal district court order that had refused to strike state law trade-secret and interference claims filed by a semiconductor materials company that claimed its trade secrets were used by a rival in patent applications, holding that the lower court erred in collapsing the two-step framework required by California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Federal Circuit concluded that the collateral order doctrine applies to denials of California anti-SLAPP motions because such orders resolve rights that would be lost if review were deferred until after final judgment (IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, LLC, No. 24-1124 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)).

Dispute over wafer technology and patent filings. The litigation stems from a failed collaboration between IQE PLC, a producer of silicon wafer products used in semiconductors, and consumer electronics such as smartphones and car sensors, and a group of semiconductor manufacturers, including Newport Fab, LLC (doing business as Jazz Semiconductor), Tower U.S. Holdings Inc., and Tower Semiconductor Ltd.

IQE asserted that in 2018, it developed a porous silicon technology that offered a superior alternative to conventional non-porous silicon methods. According to the complaint, the parties entered a nondisclosure agreement in 2015 to facilitate potential business transactions involving that technology.

Three years later, they discussed a proposed arrangement under which IQE would supply porous wafers for use in semiconductor fabrication. During those negotiations, confidential details regarding the company’s wafer technology allegedly were shared. While the discussions continued, the semiconductor manufacturer group filed a patent application in 2019 that later issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,164,740, followed by additional filings that also referenced porous semiconductor technology.

IQE alleged that the inventions disclosed in those patents were derived from its proprietary information, and that none of its personnel were credited as inventors. It sued in April 2022, asserting two federal claims, including violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and correction of inventorship under the Patent Act’s provision permitting amendment of inventor listings. The complaint also asserted five state law causes of action, including misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

Motion to strike. The semiconductor defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and simultaneously sought to strike the state law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. That statute permits early dismissal of suits arising from conduct in furtherance of petition or free-speech rights, unless the plaintiff demonstrates a probability of prevailing.

The district court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the alleged injury did not result from protected petitioning activity, specifically, the filing of patent applications, but from purported trade-secret theft and misrepresentations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which transferred the case to the Federal Circuit because the complaint included a claim for correction of inventorship under federal patent law.

Question of first impression. The Federal Circuit addressed a jurisdictional issue of first impression: whether a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion under California law is immediately appealable in a case within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction. While the Ninth Circuit allows such appeals under the collateral order doctrine, the Federal Circuit had not previously determined whether to do so. The panel emphasized that questions of its own appellate jurisdiction are governed by Federal Circuit law rather than regional circuit precedent. Nonetheless, it found the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning persuasive and adopted its framework.

Collateral order doctrine applied. The court held that the three conditions for collateral order review were satisfied. First, a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion conclusively determines whether the statute applies to the challenged claims. Second, the issue is separate from the merits because the anti-SLAPP mechanism serves to prevent defendants from defending against meritless suits that target constitutionally protected petitioning activity. Third, the order would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment since the purpose of the statute—to protect against the burdens of litigation—would be lost if appellate review were delayed.

Because California’s statute also permits interlocutory appeals in state court, the Federal Circuit deemed immediate review consistent with state policy and concluded that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions fall within the collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule. The court limited its holding to California’s law, cautioning that the appealability of denials under other states’ anti-SLAPP statutes would require separate analysis of each statute’s operation and policy.

Scope of anti-SLAPP protection. Turning to the merits, the Federal Circuit applied Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting California’s statute. The anti-SLAPP framework requires a two-step inquiry: the defendant must first show that the claim arises from an act in furtherance of petition or free-speech rights; if that showing is made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing.

The district court erred, the panel held, by combining the two steps. At the first step, the only question is whether the lawsuit arises from protected activity. Here, the relevant conduct, the filing of patent applications, qualified as petitioning activity under California law because it constitutes a communication to an official body to establish a property right.

The panel analogized patent filings to trademark applications, which the Ninth Circuit has previously recognized as protected acts. Whether the filings were wrongful or based on misappropriated information is a merits question to be resolved at the second step.

Error in district court’s analysis. The district court had concluded that the alleged injury resulted from trade-secret misappropriation rather than the act of filing patent applications. The Federal Circuit found that this reasoning improperly collapsed step one and step two of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The appropriate inquiry was whether the claims would exist “but for” the filing of the applications, not whether the alleged conduct was lawful.

Because the complaint alleged that the misappropriation occurred through disclosure of the wafer technology in the patent filings, the claims necessarily arose from that protected petitioning activity. The Federal Circuit cited California decisions holding that mere possession of trade secrets does not establish misappropriation; disclosure or use, in this case, through the patent process, is required.

The court emphasized that any claimed illegitimacy of the defendant’s acts must be addressed under the second step, where the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a probability of success. By conducting that inquiry at the first step, the district court precluded meaningful application of the statute’s burden-shifting framework.

Remand for step-two consideration. The Federal Circuit vacated the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for the district court to reconsider whether IQE can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its trade-secret and interference claims. The panel declined to undertake the step-two analysis itself, following California precedent that reserves that determination for the trial court in the first instance.

The case is No. 24-1124.

Judge: Hughes, T.

Attorneys: Michael E. Joffre (Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC) for IQE PLC. Adam Lloyd (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) for Newport Fab, LLC, d/b/a Jazz Semiconductor, Tower U.S. Holdings Inc., Tower Semiconductor Ltd., Paul D. Hurwitz, Edward Preisler, David J. Howard, and Marco Racanelli.

Companies: IQE PLC; Newport Fab, LLC, d/b/a Jazz Semiconductor; Tower U.S. Holdings Inc.; Tower Semiconductor Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory Patent TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets FedCirNews CaliforniaNews GCNNews