Opinion ID: 209874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Immediacy

Text: A party may not obtain a declaratory judgment merely because it would like an advisory opinion on whether it would be liable for patent infringement if it were to initiate some merely contemplated activity. Arrowhead, 846 F.2d at 736. Thus, although a party need not have engaged in the actual manufacture or sale of a potentially infringing product to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, there must be a showing of meaningful preparation for making or using that product. Id.; DuPont Merck Pharm., 62 F.3d at 1401; see also BP Chems. Ltd v. Union Carbide Corp., 4 F.3d 975, 978 (Fed.Cir.1993) (requiring present activity which could constitute infringement or concrete steps taken with the intent to conduct such activity); Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co. v. Releasomers, Inc., 824 F.2d 953, 955-56 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (requiring that the plaintiff actually have either produced the device or have prepared to produce that device). In general, the greater the length of time before potentially infringing activity is expected to occur, the more likely the case lacks the requisite immediacy. Sierra Applied Scis., Inc. v. Advanced Energy Indus., Inc., 363 F.3d 1361, 1379 (Fed.Cir. 2004). In Benitec Austl., Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340, 1346-50 (Fed.Cir. 2007), we affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment counterclaim where a party who sought declaratory relief had professed plans to engage in human gene-therapy treatment, but such activities could not be considered infringing until a new drug application (NDA) was filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiff, who sought declaratory relief in 2005, did not anticipate filing an NDA until at least 2010-2012, if ever, and its current activities consisted entirely of developing and submitting preliminary information to the FDA. Id. at 1346. Because it was uncertain when, if ever, the declaratory plaintiff would engage in potentially infringing activity, the dispute did not present a case or controversy of sufficient immediacy to support a declaratory judgment. Id. at 1346-47. Similarly, Sierra, 363 F.3d at 1378-81, concluded that a dispute lacked sufficient immediacy where the declaratory plaintiff presented no evidence that it had built a prototype of its Billings 150 kW power supply until at least a year after the commencement of suit. And Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 982 F.2d 1520, 1527 (Fed.Cir.1992), affirmed a dismissal of a defibrillator component manufacturer's claim for future patent infringement where clinical trials of the accused product had just begun and it was years away from potential FDA approval. See also Lang, 895 F.2d at 764 (The accused infringing ship hull would not be ready for at least nine months after the complaint was filed); Jervis B. Webb Co. v. S. Sys., Inc., 742 F.2d 1388, 1399 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (The accused device had never been used and there was insufficient evidence to show it would be used in the future). In the present case, by contrast, TubeMaster has taken significant, concrete steps to conduct loading activity with configurations 1, 2 and 4. It has developed two basic loading device designsone with circular plates and one with circular plates with tabsand has developed four loading device configurations. TubeMaster has generated AutoCAD® drawings for each of its four configurations. Each reactor is different because the tube diameter, the spacing between tubes and the size and shape of catalyst particles can vary significantly. Because TubeMaster's loading device designs are customized based upon the dimensions of each customer's reactor, it can take no further steps toward manufacturing its loading devices until it receives an order from a customer with the appropriate dimensions. TubeMaster has already successfully manufactured and delivered a loading device using configuration 3. See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Wolf, 698 F.2d 157, 169-74 (3d Cir.1982) (Declaratory relief appropriate where the manufacturer of a rear window defroster had produced a prior version of its product.); see also Super Prods. Corp. v. D P Way Corp., 546 F.2d 748, 754-55 (7th Cir.1976) (Declaratory relief appropriate where the plaintiff had a business enterprise specifically directed to the manufacture and sale of a potentially infringing product.). It is prepared to produce loading devices using configurations 1, 2 and 4 as soon as it receives an order with the appropriate dimensions. Furthermore, it expects that it can produce devices using these configurations within a normal delivery schedule once it receives an order. Constitutionally mandated immediacy requirements have been satisfied because once the threat of liability to Cat Tech has been lifted, it appears likely that TubeMaster can expeditiously solicit and fill orders for loading devices using configurations 1, 2 and 4.