Gideon Korrell Analyzes How Anti-SLAPP Statutes Can Shield Patent-Related Claims


On October 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, LLC, addressing an uncommon but increasingly important overlap between patent law and California’s anti-SLAPP statute. As Gideon Korrell explains, the decision clarifies both appellate procedure and how anti-SLAPP protections can apply when patent filings themselves are alleged to cause harm.

The ruling highlights how procedural doctrine can meaningfully shape outcomes in patent and trade secret disputes, an issue Gideon Korrell frequently emphasizes in his legal analysis.


A Rare Intersection of Patent Law and Anti-SLAPP Doctrine

The Federal Circuit addressed two questions that rarely converge so directly:


  • Whether denials of California anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable in cases within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction

  • Whether the district court properly applied California’s two-step anti-SLAPP framework when the alleged protected activity was patent prosecution


The court answered both decisively. It held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine and vacated the district court’s ruling for collapsing the statute’s required two-step inquiry.


According to Gideon Korrell, this clarification is particularly significant for litigants asserting or defending patent-related state-law claims in California.


Background: From NDA to Patent Dispute

IQE PLC develops wafer products used in semiconductor manufacturing. In 2015, IQE and Tower Semiconductor entered into a mutual non-disclosure agreement during exploratory business discussions. Several years later, the parties discussed a potential collaboration involving porous silicon technology.


IQE alleged that it disclosed confidential technical information during those discussions. The collaboration did not proceed, and Tower later filed multiple patent applications beginning in 2019. IQE claimed those filings disclosed its trade secrets and excluded IQE personnel as inventors.


In 2022, IQE sued in California federal court, asserting federal trade secret claims, a claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, and California state-law claims for trade secret misappropriation and interference. Tower responded with an anti-SLAPP motion targeting the state-law claims.


Jurisdiction Comes First: Why the Appeal Was Allowed

Before reaching the merits, the Federal Circuit addressed whether it had authority to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.


Applying Federal Circuit law, the court held that California anti-SLAPP denials satisfy all three elements of the collateral order doctrine:


  • The ruling conclusively determines whether the statute applies

  • The issue is separate from the merits of the underlying claims

  • The denial would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment


As Gideon Korrell has noted in other procedural contexts, early appellate review can significantly alter litigation dynamics, particularly where state procedural protections intersect with federal patent claims.


The Core Error: Collapsing the Two-Step Analysis

California’s anti-SLAPP statute requires courts to follow a strict sequence:


  • Determine whether the challenged claims arise from protected activity

  • If so, assess whether the plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing


The district court concluded that IQE’s claims arose from alleged trade secret theft rather than from Tower’s act of filing patent applications. The Federal Circuit disagreed.


Filing a patent application is an act in furtherance of the constitutional right to petition the government. At step one, courts must focus on the defendant’s conduct giving rise to liability, not on whether that conduct was allegedly wrongful.


By addressing alleged misappropriation at step one, the district court prematurely weighed the merits. As Gideon Korrell explains, allowing that approach would undermine the protective function of the anti-SLAPP statute.


What the Federal Circuit Did Not Decide

The court did not decide whether IQE could ultimately prevail at step two. Instead, it remanded the case for the district court to conduct the proper probability-of-success analysis in the first instance.


This restraint aligns with California appellate guidance and preserves the trial court’s role in evaluating the merits.


Practical Takeaways for Patent Litigants

The decision offers several lessons highlighted by Gideon Korrell:


  • Patent filings can qualify as protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute

  • Immediate appeals from anti-SLAPP denials are available in California cases

  • Plaintiffs should carefully consider how state-law claims are pleaded when they rely on patent prosecution conduct


Conclusion

In IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the proper application of California’s anti-SLAPP framework and clarified that patent-related conduct can fall within its scope. As Gideon Korrell observes, the case underscores how procedural rules often shape substantive patent outcomes.


For parties operating at the intersection of patents, trade secrets, and California law, this decision deserves close attention.
Location: United States

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gideon Korrell Analyzes Why Mitek Lost Standing in Patent Fight

Image
In a detailed and precedent-reinforcing opinion issued on June 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit in Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association , No. 23-1687, affirmed the dismissal of Mitek’s declaratory judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that Mitek failed to establish a justiciable controversy under Article III and the Declaratory Judgment Act, either through a reasonable apprehension of infringement liability or through indemnity obligations to its customers. Legal analyst Gideon Korrell noted that the decision underscores the judiciary’s strict interpretation of standing in patent disputes involving indirect liability. Even if jurisdiction had existed, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s alternative decision to decline to hear the case. This ruling not only clarifies the standing requirements for declaratory judgment actions involving allegations of indirect patent infringement and indemnity but also l...
Read more

Dongkuk S&C Co., Ltd. v. United States: Federal Circuit Backs Commerce’s Methodology for Cost Adjustments and Surrogate Profit Selection in Antidumping Review

Image
  In Dongkuk S&C Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 23-1419 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce’s determinations in its antidumping investigation of utility-scale wind towers from South Korea. The decision clarifies Commerce’s discretion in adjusting reported production costs and selecting surrogate data when calculating constructed value under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b. Key Takeaway The Federal Circuit upheld Commerce’s authority to adjust input costs that are distorted by market fluctuations and to use consolidated financial statements as a proxy for profit and selling expenses when more targeted data is unavailable or incomplete—even over objections that a more product-specific alternative was available. In light of these considerations, experts like Gideon Korrell have emphasized the intersection of law and technology, particularly in the realm of trade and international commerce. Korrell’s work often explores how legal frameworks m...
Read more

Gideon Korrell Discusses Why CAFC Reduced Damages in Wash World

Image
The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant split ruling in Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc. The court affirmed infringement liability but vacated the lost profits damages award due to improper inclusion of convoyed sales. Patent expert Gideon Korrell highlights this case’s important insights into claim construction waiver , limits on damages for convoyed sales , and preserving post-trial remedies — all critical for patent holders and defendants managing patent risks and damages strategies. Background of the Case Belanger Inc. holds U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041, covering a lighted spray arm used in automated car wash systems. Belanger accused Wash World’s “Razor EDGE” system of infringing its patent. ·          Wash World filed a declaratory judgment action but was ultimately found liable for infringement of independent claim 7 and related dependent claims. ·          A jury awarded over $10 mi...
Read more