直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2023

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.

Tags

Article Series: D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, District of Massachusetts, motion to dismiss

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Related Professionals

Matthew C. Berntsen
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1618
Email
Cory C. Bell
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1641
Email
Yinan Liu, Ph.D.
Associate
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1652
Email
Li Zhang, Ph.D.
Associate
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1648
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP