Federal Circuit IP

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC

By Frank Morton-Park Published January 27, 2026

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC 

CAFC Nos. 2023-2007, 2023-2095, decided Dec. 18, 2025 

(Lourie, Schall, Stoll) 

 

Issues: Whether state bad faith patent assertion statute preempted by federal law; whether district court abused its discretion in imposing $8M bond. 

Overview: District court bond orders under state bad faith patent assertion statutes are not immediately appealable as interlocutory orders. 

Background 

  • Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act (“Idaho Act”) allows targets to bring private actions and requires alleged bad-faith asserters to post bonds covering estimated litigation costs upon showing of reasonable likelihood of bad faith. 
  • Katana sued Micron (Boise-based) in Texas for patent infringement, asserting three expired patents. Micron counterclaimed for bad faith assertion under the Idaho Act. Katana moved to dismiss on federal preemption grounds. Case transferred to Idaho federal court; Idaho intervened to defend the Act. 
  • Micron separately sued Longhorn in Idaho state court for bad faith assertion, seeking $15M bond and alleging Longhorn controlled Katana. Longhorn removed to federal court and moved to dismiss on preemption grounds; Idaho again intervened. 
  • District court denied both motions to dismiss and imposed $8M bond on Longhorn and Katana. Appellants sought immediate interlocutory appeal. 

Holding: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Did not reach substantive issues of whether federal law preempts the Idaho Act or whether district court abused its discretion in requiring the $8M bond. 

Federal Circuit Analysis 

  • No § 1292 jurisdiction because the bond is not an injunction and fails test for injunction-like orders under Carson: (1) no “practical effect” of injunction (waiver available); (2) no “serious, irreparable consequence” (counsel admitted no evidence in record of inability to pay); (3) can be “effectually challenged” without immediate appeal (waiver available). See Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84-85 (1981). 
  • No jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine because the bond issue is intertwined with the merits and is reviewable on final judgment. 
  • No mandamus jurisdiction under § 1651 (All Writs Act) because appellants have adequate alternative means of relief (e.g., can request waiver). 
  • No pendent jurisdiction over motions to dismiss because there is no properly appealable interlocutory order. 

Takeaways 

Be aware of bad faith patent infringement assertion statutes, passed in over thirty states including Oregon (ORS § 646A.810) and Washington (RCW § 19.350.020). Outcome of this case may increase the practical impact of state bad faith patent assertion laws. 

  • If seeking interlocutory appeal, first exhaust remedies and develop evidentiary record.