Bridgelux v. Cree Judge Hamilton Opinion (PDF) PlaintiffÃ¢â?¬â?¢s brief (PDF) DefendantÃ¢â?¬â?¢s brief (PDF) Cree (Defendant) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Bridgelux (Plaintiff) did not allege an actual case or controversy. Cree provided declarations of a senior executive and a vice president stating no such controversy existed because there was not communication indicating Cree believed there was infringement. Bridgelux replied with a motion for jurisdictional discovery in order to prove there was an actual case or controversy. Judge Hamilton held:
The court finds that the motion for jurisdictional discovery must be DENIED. When a court considers whether it has subject matter jurisdiction under the DJA, the question is whether there has been an explicit threat or other action by the patentee, which creates a reasonable apprehension on the part of the declaratory plaintiff that it will face an infringement suit, and whether there is present activity which could constitute infringement or concrete steps taken with the intent to conduct such activity. Sierra Applied Sciences, 363 F.3d at 1373. The facts giving rise to jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action “should be found in the complaint.” Int’l Med. Prosthetics Research Assocs., Inc. v. Gore Enter. Holdings, Inc., 787 F.2d 572, 576 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, BridgeLux should have had that information in its possession before it filed an action for declaratory relief. It cannot file the action and then seek discovery to establish that it was entitled to file the action.
Judge Hamilton then allowed the parties to supplement their arguments in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S.Ct 764, 771, 166 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2007). Attached to this post are both the PlaintiffÃ¢â?¬â?¢s and DefendantÃ¢â?¬â?¢s briefs about MedImmuneÃ¢â?¬â?¢s affect on the current litigation. They are worth reading. Defendant is arguing for a narrow reading of MedImmune and arguing further MedImmune has no applicability to this case. Plaintiff argues for a somewhat broader reading of MedImmune, saying the Supreme Court broadened the Federal CircuitÃ¢â?¬â?¢s Ã¢â?¬Ë?reasonable-apprehension-of-suitÃ¢â?¬â?¢ test to include consideration of the entire dispute in light of all circumstances, including actions by both parties.