All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Court of Appeals Cases |
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
2012-09 |
-
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIOSAFE ENGINEERING, LLC AND DIGESTOR, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________ 2012-1044 __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in case no. 11-CV-0269, Judge Nora Barry Fischer. __________________________ Decided: September 25, 2012 __________________________ KEVIN P. ALLEN, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, LLP, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was DAVID W. ENGSTROM. Of counsel on the brief was JOHN W. MCILVAINE, III, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. SPIRO BEREVESKOS, Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty McNett & Henry, LLP, of Indianapolis, Indiana, argued for defendants-appellees. __________________________ MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 2 Before RADER, Chief Circuit Judge, MAYER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges. MAYER, Circuit Judge. Matthews International Corporation (“Matthews”) appeals from the final order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Mat- thews Int’l Corp. v. Biosafe Eng’g, LLC, No. 11-CV–0269,
2011 WL 4498935(W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2011) (“District Court Decision”). Because we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Matthews’ claims lacked sufficient immediacy and reality to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Matthews is a leader in the “death care” industry. It manufactures cremation equipment, caskets, and bronze memorials and sells them to funeral homes. Matthews is currently marketing a Bio Cremation™ product, which uses an alkaline hydrolysis 1 process, rather than incin- eration, to cremate human remains. According to Mat- thews, the Bio Cremation™ equipment offers an “environmentally friendly” alternative to traditional flame-based cremation. Resomation Ltd. (“Resomation”) is a Scottish company that manufactures and licenses equipment that employs an alkaline hydrolysis process to dispose of human re- mains. Resomation has granted Matthews an exclusive license to market and sell its alkaline hydrolysis equip- ment in the United States. 1 The term “alkaline hydrolysis” generally refers to a method of subjecting materials to sodium or potassium hydroxide and heat, thereby allowing such materials to be disposed of in a safer and more efficient manner. 3 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE In 2007, Biosafe Engineering, LLC and Digestor, LLC (collectively “Biosafe”) were formed to operate the busi- ness acquired from a bankrupt company, Waste Reduction by Waste Reduction, Inc. (“WR2”), and to hold the patents acquired from WR2. Biosafe ultimately acquired several patents related to the application of alkaline hydrolysis to the disposal of various types of waste, such as medical waste, infectious agents, and hazardous materials. These patents include five method patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,332,532, 6,437,211, 6,472,580, 7,183,453, and 7,829,755 (collectively the “Method Patents”), and one system pat- ent, U.S. Patent No. 7,910,788 (the “System Patent”). On February 28, 2011, Matthews filed suit against Biosafe, seeking a declaratory judgment of non- infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the Method Patents. Matthews also asserted state-law claims of trade libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. On March 22, 2011, the System Patent issued. On May 13, 2011, Matthews filed an amended complaint, which included a request that the System Patent be declared invalid and unenforceable. At the time it filed its amended complaint, Matthews had sold three Bio Cremation™ units, but none of these units had been installed in customers’ facilities. In its amended complaint, Matthews alleged that Bio- safe had “wrongly accused Matthews of patent infringe- ment, and ha[d] made false accusations about Matthews to [Matthews’] customers, potential customers, and em- ployees.” Matthews asserted that during a December 2008 telephone conversation, Biosafe’s president, Bradley Crain, told Steven Schaal, an official at Matthews’ crema- tion division, “that [Matthews’] sale of Resomation/Bio Cremation™ equipment would infringe [Biosafe’s] alleged intellectual property rights.” Matthews’ attorney thereaf- ter sent Biosafe a letter, dated December 31, 2008, re- MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 4 questing that Biosafe “detail [its] concerns in writing” regarding possible patent infringement by Matthews’ cremation products. Biosafe’s counsel responded by letter dated February 2, 2009. This letter raised possible false advertising and copyright infringement claims, asserting that Matthews was distributing sales literature marketing the Resoma- tion alkaline hydrolysis equipment using a picture that actually depicted one of Biosafe’s units instead of one of the Resomation units. The letter further stated that Biosafe could pursue “a variety of remedies for disputes involving intellectual property rights,” including a claim for patent infringement if it were “determined that a new installation by Resomation [was] operated in a manner covered by any of Biosafe’s patents.” Matthews responded by stating that while Biosafe’s letter made “vague, gen- eral references to certain patent claims and process parameters, [its] allegations [were] so vague and incom- plete” that Matthews was “at a loss to respond.” Matthews’ amended complaint further alleged that Biosafe had “launched a bad faith whispering campaign in the funeral home marketplace, by making accusations and veiled threats to potential customers that [Matthews’] Bio Cremation™ equipment” infringed Biosafe’s patents. Matthews asserted, moreover, that one of its customers, Stewart Enterprises, Inc., told Matthews that it was reluctant to buy the Bio Cremation™ equipment because of the accusations made by Biosafe. On May 27, 2011, Biosafe moved to dismiss all counts of Matthews’ amended complaint for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction and for failure to adequately plead state-law claims. On September 27, 2011, the district court granted Biosafe’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Matthews had not made “meaningful 5 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE preparation” to conduct potentially infringing activity, District Court Decision,
2011 WL 4498935, at *6 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), since the “pa- rameters used in the operation of Matthews’ devices [were] not settled” and those devices could “be operated with parameters outside of the various ones specified” in the Method Patents,
id. at *8 (citationsand internal quotation marks omitted). Because the potentially in- fringing features of the Bio Cremation™ system were “fluid and indeterminate,” Matthews’ claim “lack[ed] the necessary reality to satisfy the constitutional require- ments for declaratory judgment jurisdiction.”
Id. (cita- tions andinternal quotation marks omitted). Given that it had no information regarding the operating parameters of Matthews’ Bio Cremation™ equipment, the district court declined to provide “an advisory opinion specifying what combinations of parameters are infringing and what combinations of parameters are noninfringing.”
Id. at *9. Thecourt likewise dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Matthews’ state-law claims alleging trade libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. It noted that “bad faith” was a required element of Matthews’ state-law claims, but that Matthews had failed to adequately plead the bad faith element. The court concluded that a finding of bad faith could not be premised on the dissemination of information that was “objectively accurate,” and that Matthews’ “bald assertions” were insufficient to support its claim that Biosafe’s infringement allegations were made in bad faith. District Court Decision,
2011 WL 4498935, at *11-12 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Matthews then filed a timely appeal with this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 6 II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “Whether an actual controversy exists under the De- claratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), is a question of law that is subject to plenary appellate review.” Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.,
528 F.3d 871, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Review of the dismissal of Matthews’ state- law claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is likewise subject to de novo appellate review. Xechem Int’l, Inc. v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr.,
382 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Boyle v. United States,
200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). B. The Declaratory Judgment Act The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction. 2 Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
339 U.S. 667, 671-72 (1950). Instead, “[i]ts remedy may lie only if the court has jurisdiction from some other source.” Cat
Tech, 528 F.3d at 879; see Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth,
300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937). The party seeking to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating that an Article III case or controversy exists at the time 2 In relevant part, the Declaratory Judgment Act provides: In a case of actual controversy within its ju- risdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seek- ing such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). 7 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE the claim for declaratory relief is filed. 3 Arris Grp., Inc. v. British Telecomms., PLC,
639 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because Article III of the Constitution restricts the judicial power to the adjudication of “Cases” or “Contro- versies,” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, a court may not adjudi- cate “a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character” or “one that is academic or moot.”
Aetna, 300 U.S. at 240. Instead, a justiciable controversy exists only where a dispute is “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests,” and will “admi[t] of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.”
Id. at 240-41; see MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127. “There is . . . no facile, all-purpose standard to police the line between declaratory judgment actions which satisfy the case or controversy requirement and those that do not.” Cat
Tech, 528 F.3d at 879. Accordingly, in de- termining whether a justiciable controversy is present, the analysis must be calibrated to the particular facts of each case, with the fundamental inquiry being “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and 3 “Since its inception, the Declaratory Judgment Act has been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,
515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995). Accordingly, even if a case or controversy exists, the trial court has significant discre- tion in determining whether or not to exercise declaratory judgment jurisdiction. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
549 U.S. 118, 136 (2007). MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 8 reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judg- ment.”
MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127(footnote omitted) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Cat
Tech, 528 F.3d at 879. Here, as the trial court correctly concluded, Matthews’ dispute with Biosafe lacks the requisite immediacy and reality to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. C. Immediacy Matthews’ dispute with Biosafe lacks immediacy be- cause there is no evidence as to when, if ever, the Bio Cremation™ equipment will be used in a manner that could potentially infringe the Method Patents. Matthews has taken no steps toward direct infringement of those patents. Although it sells the Bio Cremation™ equip- ment, it does not practice any of the methods disclosed in the Method Patents, and cannot, therefore, be held liable for direct infringement. See Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Com- puter Inc.,
550 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In- fringement of a method claim occurs when a party performs all of the steps of the process . . . .” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
6 F.3d 770, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[A] method or process claim is directly infringed only when the proc- ess is performed.”). Nor is any potential future infringement by Mat- thews’ customers sufficiently immediate to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. 4 As of May 4 “[W]here a patent holder accuses customers of di- rect infringement based on the sale or use of a supplier’s equipment, the supplier has standing to commence a declaratory judgment action if (a) the supplier is obligated to indemnify its customers from infringement liability, or (b) there is a controversy between the patentee and the supplier as to the supplier’s liability for induced or con- tributory infringement based on the alleged acts of direct 9 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 13, 2011, the date it filed its amended complaint, Mat- thews had sold three Bio Cremation™ units to customers. None of these units, however, had been installed in cus- tomers’ facilities. Significantly, the Bio Cremation™ equipment can be operated using parameters—related to such items as temperature and pressure settings as well as to pH levels—that do not infringe the Method Patents. Given that Matthews has alleged no facts regarding whether its customers plan to operate the Bio Crema- tion™ equipment in a manner that could even arguably infringe the Method Patents, its dispute with Biosafe is too remote and speculative to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. “A party may not obtain a declaratory judgment merely because it would like an advisory opinion on whether it would be liable for patent infringement if it were to initiate some merely contemplated activity.” Cat
Tech, 528 F.3d at 881(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Public Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co.,
344 U.S. 237, 244 (1952) (“The disagreement must not be nebulous or contingent but must have taken on fixed and final shape so that a court can see what legal issues it is deciding, what effect its decision will have on the adversaries, and some useful purpose to be achieved in deciding them.”). Until some specific and concrete evidence regarding how Matthews’ customers plan to use the cremation units is available, any judicial determina- tion regarding whether such use would infringe the infringement by its customers.”
Arris, 639 F.3d at 1375(footnote omitted). Even assuming arguendo that Mat- thews could be held liable for induced or contributory infringement, however, its dispute with Biosafe is not ripe for review given that, as will be discussed more fully below, the parameters under which Matthews’ customers plan to operate the Bio Cremation™ equipment are not yet known. MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 10 Method Patents would be premature. See Sierra Applied Scis., Inc. v. Advanced Energy Indus., Inc.,
363 F.3d 1361, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (concluding that a dispute lacked the required immediacy where a prototype of the product in question would not be operational until more than a year after the complaint was filed); Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.,
982 F.2d 1520, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (affirming the dismissal of a declaratory judgment claim where clinical trials of an allegedly infringing product had just begun and it was “years away” from being approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)); Lang v. Pac. Marine & Supply Co.,
895 F.2d 761, 764 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (concluding that the actual controversy requirement was not satisfied where the allegedly infringing product “would not be finished until at least 9 months after the complaint was filed”). As Matthews correctly notes, a showing of actual in- fringement is not required for a case or controversy to exist. See
MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 134(emphasizing that a party need not “bet the farm, or . . . risk treble damages . . . before seeking a declaration of its actively contested legal rights”). On the other hand, however, when it is unclear when any even arguably infringing activity will occur, a dispute will lack the immediacy necessary to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. See
Sierra, 363 F.3d at 1379. “[A] party need not have engaged in the actual manufacture or sale of a potentially infringing product to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement,” but “the greater the length of time before potentially infringing activity is expected to occur, the more likely the case lacks the requisite immediacy.” Cat
Tech, 528 F.3d at 881(cita- tions and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992) (“‘[S]ome day’ intentions—without any description of 11 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require.”). Here, Matthews’ dispute with Biosafe lacks the requisite immediacy because it is unclear when, if ever, Matthews’ customers will use the Bio Cremation™ equipment in a manner that could even arguably infringe the Method Patents. See Benitec Austl., Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc.,
495 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (concluding that there was no declaratory judgment jurisdiction where a generic drug manufacturer, who sought declaratory relief in 2005, did not anticipate filing a new drug application with the FDA until “at least 2010-2012, if ever” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
Arris, 639 F.3d at 1374(emphasizing that a party does not obtain standing to obtain a declaratory judgment of non- infringement simply because it has suffered “economic injury” as a result of a patentee’s infringement allega- tions); Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
537 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“MedImmune does not change our long-standing rule that the existence of a patent is not sufficient to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction.”). D. Reality Matthews’ dispute with Biosafe likewise fails to meet constitutionally-mandated reality requirements. “In the context of patent litigation, the reality requirement is often related to the extent to which the technology in question is ‘substantially fixed’ as opposed to ‘fluid and indeterminate’ at the time declaratory relief is sought.” Cat
Tech, 528 F.3d at 882(citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he greater the variability of the subject of a declaratory- judgment suit, particularly as to its potentially infringing features, the greater the chance that the court’s judgment will be purely advisory, detached from the eventual, actual content of that subject—in short, detached from MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 12 eventual reality.”
Sierra, 363 F.3d at 1379. As both Biosafe and Matthews acknowledge, the Bio Cremation™ equipment can be operated using a variety of process parameters, some of which would not infringe the Method Patents. See Br. of Defendants-Appellees at 8-9 (“Each of the independent claims of the Method Patents has clearly stated operating parameters that can be avoided to per- form alkaline hydrolysis of a deceased human.”); Br. of Plaintiff-Appellant at 26-27 (“[I]t is the essence of Mat- thews’s case that Bio Cremation™ does operate outside of [Biosafe’s] patents.”). Since Matthews has never provided information regarding the specific parameters under which its units will likely be operated, it would be impos- sible to determine whether such operation could meet the claim limitations contained in the Method Patents. As we explained in Benitec, a party has no right to obtain de- claratory relief when it provides “insufficient information for a court to assess whether [its future activities] would be infringing or
not.” 495 F.3d at 1349. Cat Tech, upon which Matthews relies, is inapposite. There, we found that there was a justiciable controversy where the declaratory judgment plaintiff had finalized the design of four different configurations for devices used to place catalyst particles into multi-tube chemical
reactors. 528 F.3d at 880-82. The plaintiff stood ready, moreover, to produce such devices upon receiving an order from a customer.
Id. at 881. Here,by contrast, there is no indication that Matthews’ customers have settled upon a fixed protocol for using the Bio Cremation™ equipment. Because Matthews’ technology is “fluid and indetermi- nate” rather than “substantially fixed,” its dispute with Biosafe lacks the requisite reality to support the exercise of declaratory judgment jurisdiction.
Id. at 882; see Sierra, 363 F.3d at 1379-80 (concluding that declaratory relief was not available where development of the device 13 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE in question was “at an early stage” and its design was “fluid and indeterminate” when the complaint was filed);
Telectronics, 982 F.2d at 1527(affirming the dismissal of a complaint where “[t]here was no certainty that the device when approved would be the same device that began clinical trials”); see also Int'l Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co.,
623 F.2d 1207, 1216 (7th Cir. 1980) (“Our concern is not that the [product in question] will never be pro- duced, but rather that because of the relatively early stage of its development, the design which is before us now may not be the design which is ultimately produced and marketed.”). Simply put, because the operating protocols for the Bio Cremation™ units are unknown, any judicial determination as to whether operation of those units could infringe the Method Patents would constitute an advisory opinion based upon a hypothetical set of facts. See Arctic Corner, Inc. v. United States,
845 F.2d 999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“At the heart of the ‘case or contro- versy’ requirement is the prohibition against advisory opinions.”). E. The System Patent The district court likewise correctly determined that it had no jurisdiction over the System Patent. That patent did not issue until nearly a month after Matthews filed its complaint. There is no doubt that, under certain circum- stances, a litigant is allowed to supplement his pleadings to include events occurring after a complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (“On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occur- rence, or event that happened after the date of the plead- ing to be supplemented.”). Here, however, because the trial court had no jurisdiction over the Method Patents at issue in Matthews’ original complaint, it was without authority to consider the System Patent which issued MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 14 after that complaint was filed. “It has long been the case that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P.,
541 U.S. 567, 570-71 (2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also GAF Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp.,
90 F.3d 479, 483 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[L]ater events may not create jurisdic- tion where none existed at the time of filing.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, as the trial court correctly concluded, absent “predicate jurisdic- tion” based upon the Method Patents, it had no authority to exercise jurisdiction over the System Patent. District Court Decision,
2011 WL 4498935, at *10. F. State-Law Claims In addition to seeking a declaratory judgment of non- infringement and invalidity with respect to the Method and System Patents, Matthews also asserted state-law claims for trade libel, defamation, and tortious interfer- ence with contractual relations. Matthews, however, failed to plead the bad faith element necessary to support its state-law claims. “[F]ederal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement of its patent and warning about potential litigation.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc.,
362 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Matthews’ state-law claims could “survive federal preemption only to the extent that those claims [were] based on a showing of ‘bad faith’ action in asserting infringement.”
Id. Matthews alleges thatBiosafe officials made “thinly-veiled threats of liability” for patent in- fringement to both Matthews’ employees and its custom- ers. Even assuming arguendo that Biosafe made infringement allegations, however, there is no evidence 15 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE that such allegations were objectively baseless. “A plain- tiff claiming that a patent holder has engaged in wrongful conduct by asserting claims of patent infringement must establish that the claims of infringement were objectively baseless.”
Id. at 1377; MikohnGaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming, Inc.,
165 F.3d 891, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“In general, a threshold showing of incorrectness or falsity, or disregard for either, is required in order to find bad faith in the communication of information about the existence or pendency of patent rights.”). The Method Patents disclose the use of an alkaline hydrolysis process to dis- pose of various types of waste, such as medical waste and hazardous waste, while the Bio Cremation™ equipment uses an alkaline hydrolysis process to dispose of human remains. Because Matthews points to nothing to indicate that Biosafe’s alleged infringement allegations were so unreasonable as to be objectively baseless, the trial court correctly concluded that Matthews failed to sufficiently plead the bad faith element necessary to support its state- law claims. 5 See Dominant Semiconductors Sdn. Bhd. v. 5 Matthews asserts that Gordon I. Kaye and Peter B. Weber, the applicants for several of the Method Pat- ents, made false statements to the United States Patent and Trademark Office when prosecuting their applica- tions. Absent any evidence, however, that Biosafe itself engaged in inequitable conduct—or had knowledge of such conduct on the part of Kaye and Weber—there is no showing of the bad faith required to support Matthews’ state-law claims. In order to survive Biosafe’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Matthews was required to do more than make bald assertions that Biosafe acted in “bad faith.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a claim for relief); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE 16 OSRAM GmbH,
524 F.3d 1254, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“To be objectively baseless, the infringement allegations must be such that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co.,
227 U.S. 8, 37-38 (1913) (“Patents would be of little value if infringers of them could not be notified of the consequences of infringement, or proceeded against in the courts. Such action, considered by itself, cannot be said to be illegal.”). This court has “uniformly upheld a patentee’s right to publicize the issuance of patents and to so inform potential infringers.”
Mikohn, 165 F.3d at 897. Furthermore, as the trial court correctly concluded, Matthews’ state-law claims would not be ripe for review even if it had properly pled the required bad faith ele- ment. See District Court Decision,
2011 WL 4498935, at *14 (“[T]here is little hardship in waiting . . . until Mat- thews has actually delivered its first units and Matthews’ customers have used them. Once the facts are actually developed, a suit may be appropriate. At present, how- ever, it is not.”). As noted previously, in order to ascertain whether Biosafe’s infringement allegations were made in “bad faith,” the trial court would be required to determine whether those allegations were objectively baseless. The court would have no basis for determining whether Bio- safe’s infringement allegations were objectively baseless, however, until it had some particularized knowledge as to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recita- tion of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 17 MATTHEWS INTL v. BIOSAFE how Matthews’ customers planned to operate the Bio Cremation™ equipment. Thus, until some specific evi- dence regarding the operating parameters for the Bio Cremation™ units is available, any determination as to whether Biosafe acted unreasonably in asserting in- fringement would be premature. See Texas v. United States,
523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is af- firmed. AFFIRMED
Document Info
Docket Number: 2012-1044
Citation Numbers: 695 F.3d 1322, 104 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1393, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20137, 2012 WL 4354663
Judges: Rader, Mayer, Schall
Filed Date: 9/25/2012
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024