IQE plc v. Newport Fab, LLC

Summary

IQE sues Newport Fab and Tower Semiconductor for patent infringement in semiconductor manufacturing technology.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Entities in this case

Parties

IQE PLC (plaintiff) MARCO RACANELLI (defendant) DAVID J. HOWARD (defendant) EDWARD PREISLER (defendant) PAUL D. HURWITZ (defendant) TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR LTD. (defendant) TOWER U.S. HOLDINGS INC. (defendant) NEWPORT FAB, LLC, DBA Jazz Semiconductor (defendant)

Docket entries

1. #472023-10-30

   Case Transferred to USCA Federal Circuit per Order Filed 10/30/2023. Provided all items via email. [12817373] (ER) [Entered: 10/30/2023 05:38 PM]

2. #462023-10-30

   Order filed (RICHARD A. PAEZ, HOLLY A. THOMAS and JED S. RAKOFF): This case arises out of IQE plc (“IQE”)’s allegations that Newport Fab, LLC, Tower U.S. Holdings Inc., Tower Semiconductor Ltd., Paul D. Hurwitz, Edward Preisler, David J. Howard, and Marco Racanelli (collectively, “Tower”) misappropriated its trade secrets in four patent applications. In April 2022, IQE sued Tower in the Central District of California, Southern Division. IQE asserted claims of (1) violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, (2) violations of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), (3) correction of inventorship, (4) breach of contract, (5) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and (6) both intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. In August 2022, Tower filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In addition, and as relevant to this appeal, Tower filed a special motion to strike IQE’s claims for violations of CUTSA and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. In its special motion to strike, Tower alleged that IQE’s claims were not actionable because they were based on Tower’s acts in furtherance of its right to petition the government. The district court in large part denied Tower’s motion to dismiss and special motion to strike. Here, Tower timely appeals the denial of its special motion to strike. We must first determine whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. See Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest Grp. Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2015). Specifically, we must determine whether this appeal implicates the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) given that IQE’s complaint contains a claim created by federal patent law. If not, this court would retain jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Tower’s anti-SLAPP motion. See Langer v. Kiser, 57 F.4th 1085, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023) (“The denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is an immediately appealable final decision pursuant to the collateral order doctrine.”). The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals “from a final decision of a district court of the United States . . . in any civil action arising under . . . any Act of Congress relating to patents.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). As this court has observed, a civil action arises under the federal patent laws where “a well-pleaded complaint establishes . . . that federal patent law creates the cause of action.” Amity, 793 F.3d at 994 (quoting Breed v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 253 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001)). Indeed, the “existence of a single claim created by federal patent law is sufficient to trigger the Federal Circuit’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the entire case,” and it is “immaterial” that the complaint “also asserts non-patent claims, or that non-patent issues will predominate.” Id. Here, IQE’s well-pleaded complaint contains a claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. This court has previously held that such a claim is created by federal patent law. See Breed, 253 F.3d at 1177–78. As a result, the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal. To be sure, we have recognized at least two exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule for the purpose of determining whether the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction is implicated. See Breed, 253 F.3d at 1179 (“Where theplaintiff moves to voluntarily dismiss a patent claim early in the litigation, and the district court grants the motion without opposition, the Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the appeal.”); Denbicare U.S.A. Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 84 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Because the district court both dismissed all patent claims from this case and separated its decision on the merits of the nonpatent claims through the grant of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b), we have appellate jurisdiction over the partial final judgment.”), abrogated on other grounds by Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013). However, this case does not fall into either exception, as IQE’s singular patent claim was not dismissed, and the district court below did not invoke Rule 54(b) to separate out its decision on Tower’s anti-SLAPP motion as a partial final judgment. We consequently hold that the Federal Circuit, not this court, has jurisdiction over the merits of this appeal. Nonetheless, “we need not necessarily dismiss this appeal.” Amity, 793 F.3d at 994. Instead, under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, courts are directed “to transfer a misfiled appeal as long as two requirements are met: (1) the court to which the appeal is to be transferred would have had jurisdiction at the time the appeal was filed; and (2) transfer is in the interest of justice.” Id. at 995 (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons described above, the Federal Circuit would have had jurisdiction at the time this appeal was filed. In addition, “transfer will generally be in the interest of justice, unless it is apparent that the matter to be transferred is frivolous or was filed in bad faith,” a standard that this court has described as a “low bar.” Id. at 996. Thus, in Amity, we concluded that transfer would be in the interest of justice where the operative complaint contained a patent claim, the appeal raised a non-frivolous question, and there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the appellants. See id. at 997. The same logic applies here, as Tower’s appeal raises non-frivolous merits questions, and “nothing before us indicates that [Tower’s] misfiling was anything other than an honest mistake.” Id. Finally, as we recognized in Amity, “absent contravening considerations, another court’s exclusive jurisdiction makes transfer appropriate.” Id. at 996. We therefore transfer this appeal to the Federal Circuit. [12817342] (AF) [Entered: 10/30/2023 04:54 PM]

3. #452023-10-16

   ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO RICHARD A. PAEZ, HOLLY A. THOMAS and JED S. RAKOFF. The audio and video recordings of this hearing are available on our website at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/. [12810135] (DLM) [Entered: 10/16/2023 11:50 AM]

4. #442023-10-05

   Added Attorney Michael Joffre for Appellee IQE plc, in case 22-55924. [12805611] (HH) [Entered: 10/05/2023 03:53 PM]

5. #432023-10-05

   Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Michael E. Joffre (Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC 1101 K Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005) for Appellee IQE plc. Date of service: 10/05/2023. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12805604] [22-55924] (Joffre, Michael) [Entered: 10/05/2023 03:50 PM]

6. #422023-10-04

   Filed (ECF) Appellants David J. Howard, Paul D. Hurwitz, Newport Fab, LLC, Edward Preisler, Marco Racanelli, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and Tower U.S. Holdings Inc. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 10/04/2023. [12804500] [22-55924] (Lloyd, Adam) [Entered: 10/04/2023 02:19 PM]

7. #412023-09-29

   Filed (ECF) Appellee IQE plc citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 09/29/2023. [12801388] [22-55924] (Joffre, Michael) [Entered: 09/29/2023 11:34 AM]

8. #402023-09-01

   Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice by Attorney Michael Joffre for Appellee IQE plc. Hearing in Pasadena on 10/16/2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom: 3). Filer sharing argument time: No. (Argument minutes: 15) Appearance in person or by video: I wish to appear in person. Special accommodations: NO. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. Date of service: 09/01/2023. [12785464] [22-55924] (Joffre, Michael) [Entered: 09/01/2023 02:01 PM]

9. #392023-08-15

   Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice by Attorney Mr. Adam Lloyd for Appellants David J. Howard, Paul D. Hurwitz, Newport Fab, LLC, Edward Preisler, Marco Racanelli, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and Tower U.S. Holdings Inc.. Hearing in Pasadena on 10/16/2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Courtroom: 3). Filer sharing argument time: No. (Argument minutes: 15) Appearance in person or by video: I wish to appear in person. Special accommodations: NO. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. Date of service: 08/15/2023. [12774841] [22-55924] (Lloyd, Adam) [Entered: 08/15/2023 04:42 PM]

10. #382023-08-15

    Added Attorney Adam Lloyd for Appellants Newport Fab, LLC, et al., in case 22-55924. [12774764] (HH) [Entered: 08/15/2023 03:56 PM]

11. #372023-08-15

    Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Adam K. Lloyd (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071) for Appellants David J. Howard, Paul D. Hurwitz, Newport Fab, LLC, Edward Preisler, Marco Racanelli, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and Tower U.S. Holdings Inc.. Date of service: 08/15/2023. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12774722] [22-55924] (Lloyd, Adam) [Entered: 08/15/2023 03:17 PM]

12. #362023-08-06

    Notice of Oral Argument on Monday, October 16, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 3 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA.The hearing time is the local time zone at the scheduled hearing location.View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may have the option to appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. Anyone appearing in person must review and comply with our Protocols for In Person Hearings, available here. At this time, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion. The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some judges will continue to appear remotely. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance.Please note however that if you do elect to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so.Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing, including when to be available (30 minutes before the hearing time) and when and how to submit additional citations (filing electronically as far in advance of the hearing as possible).If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in CM/ECF no later than 28 days before Monday, October 16, 2023. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice.[12768758]. [22-55924] (KS) [Entered: 08/06/2023 06:17 AM]

13. #352023-06-20

    Filed (ECF) Attorney Mr. Jason D. Russell for Appellants David J. Howard, Paul D. Hurwitz, Newport Fab, LLC, Edward Preisler, Marco Racanelli, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and Tower U.S. Holdings Inc. response to notice for case being considered for oral argument. Date of service: 06/20/2023. [12739254] [22-55924] (Russell, Jason) [Entered: 06/20/2023 02:29 PM]

14. #342023-06-16

    This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in PasadenaPlease review the Pasadena sitting dates for October 2023 and the 2 subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please file Form 32 within 3 business days of this notice using the CM/ECF filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions carefully.When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 business days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation).[12737892]. [22-55924] (KS) [Entered: 06/16/2023 12:22 PM]

15. #332023-06-08

    Filed (ECF) Attorney Michael Joffre for Appellee IQE plc response to notice for case being considered for oral argument. Date of service: 06/08/2023. [12731464] [22-55924] (Joffre, Michael) [Entered: 06/08/2023 08:35 AM]

16. #322023-06-07

    Filed (ECF) Attorney Mr. Jason D. Russell for Appellants David J. Howard, Paul D. Hurwitz, Newport Fab, LLC, Edward Preisler, Marco Racanelli, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and Tower U.S. Holdings Inc. response to notice for case being considered for oral argument. Date of service: 06/07/2023. [12731411] [22-55924] (Russell, Jason) [Entered: 06/07/2023 08:43 PM]

17. #312023-06-07

    Received 6 paper copies of Reply Brief [28] filed by appellants. [12731021] (NAR) [Entered: 06/07/2023 02:29 PM]

18. #302023-06-06

    This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in PasadenaPlease review the Pasadena sitting dates for September 2023 and the 2 subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please file Form 32 within 3 business days of this notice using the CM/ECF filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions carefully.When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a letter within 3 business days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: Correspondence to Court; Subject: request for mediation).[12729661]. [22-55924] (KS) [Entered: 06/06/2023 11:31 AM]

19. #292023-06-05

    Filed clerk order: The reply brief [28] submitted by appellants is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 6 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: gray. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. [12728764] (JMR) [Entered: 06/05/2023 01:50 PM]

20. #282023-06-02

    Submitted (ECF) Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants David J. Howard, Paul D. Hurwitz, Newport Fab, LLC, Edward Preisler, Marco Racanelli, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. and Tower U.S. Holdings Inc.. Date of service: 06/02/2023. [12728068] [22-55924] (Russell, Jason) [Entered: 06/02/2023 05:28 PM]

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.