Last Monday, the CAFC removed any doubt as to the status of its previous test for finding an Article III case or controversy in SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. The court declined to specifically outline the all circumstances that would satisfy their new standard, but they did say that:
Article III jurisdiction may be met where the patentee takes a position that puts the declaratory judgment plaintiff in the position of either pursuing arguably illegal behavior or abandoning that which he claims a right to do.
In this case, the court found standing due to “a thorough infringement analysis presented by seasoned litigation experts” in the license negotiations. Additionally,
ST presented SanDisk with a detailed presentation which identified, on an element-by-element basis, the manner in which ST believed each of SanDiskÃ¢â?¬â?¢s products infringed the specific claims of each of STÃ¢â?¬â?¢s patents
Thusly has the bar been lowered for getting into court for a declaratory judgment, and we shall see how the District Courts (other than the N.D. of Iowa, who already has articulated an opinion on the matter here) handle this broadened power of adjudication.