Plaintiff’s Declaratory Action Not Anticipatory Litigation Due to Patentee’s Delayed Response to Licensing Request

April 7, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgement action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

Plaintiff and defendant are both tool manufacturers. Defendant sent a letter notifying plaintiff that some of plaintiff’s products may infringe defendant’s tooling patents. When the parties could not resolve the dispute, defendant informed plaintiff that it would sue plaintiff for patent infringement and indicated that it was preparing both state and federal complaints. In response, plaintiff offered to consider a licensing agreement with defendant instead of risking litigation, which defendant never responded to. Three months after plaintiff’s outreach for a license, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California that its products did not infringe defendant's patents. Five days later, defendant sued plaintiff for patent infringement in Wisconsin and moved to dismiss or transfer the California case.

In deciding whether to dismiss or transfer the case, the California court noted that the first-to-file rule generally applies. The rule favors the first action filed—in this case, the California case over the later-filed Wisconsin case. The court, however, explained that the first-to-file rule is not absolute and considered defendant’s arguments that several factors warranted an exception to the rule in this situation, including: bad-faith anticipatory litigation and forum shopping, convenience, and jurisdiction over the parties.

In this case plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory because it only filed the California case after defendant failed to respond for three months to its licensing request. According to the court, plaintiff “cannot be expected to wait around indefinitely” for a defendant to file suit. The court also found that plaintiff did not engage in improper forum shopping because plaintiff filed suit in its home district rather than some “random district that is disconnected from its operations.” 

Defendant likewise failed to show that Wisconsin was a more convenient forum to warrant transferring the action because neither plaintiff nor defendant was headquartered in Wisconsin and most of the evidence regarding infringement would be in California because that is where plaintiff’s research operations were located. The fact that most of the inventors lived in Wisconsin was not enough to warrant transfer because neither party’s “core operations” were in Wisconsin. 

There was also no dispute that all parties were subject to jurisdiction in California. Even if there were a question of proper jurisdiction, the court noted that communications threatening suit or licensing offers, like the ones sent to plaintiff here, can establish personal jurisdiction.

Thus, because defendant failed to show any exception disfavoring the first-to-file rule, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer the California case to Wisconsin.

Practice Tip: A patent owner considering an infringement suit must be diligent in communicating to an alleged infringer its intent to file suit and in filing its complaint. Delaying action on a potential claim risks allowing an infringer to preempt the patent owner with a declaratory judgment action, thereby gaining control of litigation as the plaintiff.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc., 2-24-cv-08722 (CDCA Feb. 13, 2025) (Stephen V. Wilson)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgement action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.