-
Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Denies Appeal From A District Court Ordering An $8 Million Bond Under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions Of Patent Infringement Act
01/13/2026On December 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies’ interlocutory appeal from a district court order requiring an $8 million bond under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC (C.A.F.C. Dec. 18, 2025). The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the bond order was neither an appealable injunction, nor a collateral order, and mandamus was unavailable given alternative avenues for relief in the district court.
Katana, allegedly controlled by Longhorn IP, sued Micron in the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of three expired semiconductor patents: U.S. Patents RE38,806, 6,352,879, and 6,731,013. After transfer to the District of Idaho, where Micron is headquartered, Micron counterclaimed under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Longhorn IP and Katana moved to dismiss, arguing that the Act is preempted by federal law. The district court denied the motions to dismiss and required Longhorn and Katana to post an $8 million bond under Idaho Code § 48-1707, which requires a bond upon a “reasonable likelihood” of a bad-faith assertion, subject to waiver upon a showing of assets or other good cause.
The Court ruled the bond order was not an injunction under § 1292 because it functions like a conditional stay and does not compel obedience under threat of contempt. There was no record proof of irreparable harm, as Katana and Longhorn presented no evidence they could not pay, and they had not pursued the statutory waiver process, defeating claims that immediate appeal was the only avenue of relief.
The Court also rejected collateral-order jurisdiction because the bond decision was intertwined with the merits of the bad-faith claim and remained reviewable after final judgment, including via repayment of any improperly required security with interest under generally recognized principles and Idaho law. Mandamus jurisdiction was also unavailable because Idaho law furnishes an adequate alternative—seeking bond waiver—so appellants could not satisfy the “no other adequate means” requirement.
