Anti-SLAPP Confers Jurisdiction for Interlocutory Appeals

In IQE PLC. v. Newport Fab, LLC, No. 2024-1124 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated a district court decision denying defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion.

The parties, IQE and Tower, previously negotiated for Tower to use IQE’s wafers in its semiconductor products. After negotiations fell through, IQE sued Tower for trade-secret violations, contending that it disclosed IQE’s confidential information in patent applications that were filed during (and shortly after) the parties’ negotiations. Tower moved to invoke California’s anti-SLAPP statute in response, arguing that filing for patent applications was an exercise of its constitutional right to petition the government. The district court denied the motion.

As an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit first assessed whether it had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a district court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Applying the “collateral order” three-factor test, the Federal Circuit held that it had jurisdiction, explaining that if Tower could not immediately appeal the order, the protection of the act would be irretrievably lost because Tower would have already incurred the burden of litigation by the time a final judgment was rendered.

After assessing jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court improperly applied the Ninth Circuit’s anti-SLAPP two-step inquiry. Specifically, step one requires identifying the “protected activity,” which the district court framed as the possession of allegedly secret material. The Federal Circuit instead found that the correct question was whether the submission of that material in the patent applications was protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The Court concluded it was and remanded to the district court for further consideration of Tower’s motion.