May 25, 2023
By Matthew C. Berntsen; Cory C. Bell; Yinan Liu, Ph.D.; Li Zhang, Ph.D.
This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-12310, Judge Pattis B. Saris denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Second Amended Complaint, stating that “[t]his is an old case and an open-ended extension is unwarranted. If a Third Amended Complaint is appropriate, plaintiff may move to amend.”
In Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA Newburyport-MA, LLC, No. 17-cv-12375, Judge Talwani denied the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the Defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement regarding an unaccused device under Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
The Court first rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that no “meaningful preparation” for making or using a potentially infringing product has occurred, instead crediting the Defendant’s allegation that “not only that it possesses a potentially infringing design,” but “the potentially infringing device has been ordered.”
Next, the Court held that the Defendant’s apprehension of suit was “sufficient to establish [declaratory judgment] jurisdiction.” Here, the Plaintiff has maintained a patent infringement action against the Defendant and refused to either confirm non-infringement or promise not to sue with respect to the unaccused device, suggesting the existence of “an active and substantial controversy.”
The Court also found that concerns about issuing an advisory opinion due to the variability of the subject of the declaratory judgment action, in particular as to its potentially infringing features, were not present in this case because the Defendant has ordered the potentially infringing device from its manufacturer, leaving its “preliminary drawings” with “no bearing on the analysis.”
Accordingly, the Court found the Defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment satisfied the immediacy and reality requirements under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Article Series: D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, District of Massachusetts, motion to dismiss
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Building a Strong ADC Patent Portfolio – From Prosecution and Litigation Perspectives
May 15, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.