Meaningful Preparation to Conduct Potentially Infringing Activity Required for Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.30.08
In Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc. (No. 07-1443, May 28, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to three different configurations of a catalyst loading device which had yet to be manufactured by TubeMaster. The district court granted TubeMaster's motion for declaratory judgment of non-infringement based on a finding of a "live controversy" because TubeMaster had designed the configurations and was ready to produce the configurations upon receipt of an order.
A declaratory judgment plaintiff must show "meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity" to satisfy the immediacy and reality requirements for a declaratory judgment. The fundamental inquiry is whether, under all the circumstances, there exists a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc, 549 U.S. 118 (2007), eliminated the requirement of a reasonable apprehension of suit but did not change the importance of meaningful preparation to engage in potentially infringing activity in the totality of circumstances. "If a declaratory judgment plaintiff has not taken significant, concrete steps to conduct infringing activity, the dispute is neither 'immediate' nor 'real' and the requirements for justiciability have not been met." The Federal Circuit agrees that the controversy here was sufficiently immediate where TubeMaster had developed and designed the configurations in question and was prepared to promptly produce the configurations when it received an order. Also, the controversy is deemed sufficiently real because the configuration designs were "substantially fixed" and could be used for production without significant modifications.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
