March 2013

Spotlight Info

In Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., No. 12-1308 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2013), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in its determination that there was no Article III case or controversy between Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) and Arkema Inc. (“Arkema”) regarding the infringement and validity of certain patents relating to HFO-1234yf (“1234yf”), an automotive refrigerant.  Arkema had filed a DJ action over Honeywell’s patents, and when Honeywell was granted two additional patents directed to using the refrigerant in automobile air conditioning systems, Arkema moved to supplement its complaint to seek DJ of noninfringement as to the two additional patents, fearing liability under those patents arising from the sale of the refrigerant to U.S. automobile manufacturers.  In holding Arkema’s supplemental claims justiciable, the Court held that no specific infringing acts were necessary for DJ jurisdiction, and that a sufficient controversy existed for DJ jurisdiction “where the patentee had accused the declaratory judgment plaintiff of misappropriating the same technology in related litigation.”  Slip op. at 11.  The Court concluded that Honeywell’s accusing Arkema of infringing its rights with respect to 1234yf in litigation created a sufficiently affirmative act on the part of the patentee for DJ purposes.  See this month’s edition of Last Month at the Federal Circuit for a full summary of this decision.