Opinion ID: 209874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reality

Text: The dispute between TubeMaster and Cat Tech also meets constitutionally mandated reality requirements. In the context of patent litigation, the reality requirement is often related to the extent to which the technology in question is substantially fixed as opposed to fluid and indeterminate at the time declaratory relief is sought. Sierra, 363 F.3d at 1379. Accordingly, [t]he greater the variability of the subject of a declaratory-judgment suit, particularly as to its potentially infringing features, the greater the chance that the court's judgment will be purely advisory, detached from the eventual, actual content of that subjectin short, detached from eventual reality. Id.; see also Int'l Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623 F.2d 1207, 1216 (7th Cir.1980) (Our concern is not that the [product in question] will never be produced, but rather that because of the relatively early stage of its development, the design which is before us now may not be the design which is ultimately produced and marketed.). In Telectronics, we affirmed a dismissal of a declaratory judgment action where clinical trials of the accused device had just begun and [t]here was no certainty that the device when approved [by the FDA] would be the same device that began clinical trials. 982 F.2d at 1525-27. Likewise, in Sierra we found that jurisdictional reality requirements were not met where development of the power supply in question was at an early stage and its design was fluid and indeterminate when the complaint was filed. 363 F.3d at 1379-80. In Benitec, we also found no declaratory judgment basis where the declaratory plaintiff had only a vaguely defined plan to expand into animal husbandry and veterinary products and the technology in question was still in a nascent stage. 495 F.3d at 1349 Unlike the technology involved in Telectronics, Sierra and Benitec, which was fluid and in an early stage of development, TubeMaster's technology is substantially fixed. TubeMaster's four basic loading device designs are designed to cover virtually all of the reactor configurations that might be encountered at customers' facilities. Thus, TubeMaster does not expect to make substantial modifications to its loading device designs once production begins. The dispute with Cat Tech is real, not hypothetical, because it appears likely that, once the cloud of liability for infringement is eliminated, the accused products can be produced without significant design change. See Interdynamics, 698 F.2d at 174 (proceeding where the plaintiff planned to market a product that it would be able to manufacture relatively quickly). Cat Tech argues that there is no live controversy regarding configurations 1, 2 and 4 because TubeMaster has made no disclosure of those configurations to customers or potential customers. Evidence that no preparations have been made to advertise or sell a potentially infringing device may, under certain circumstances, indicate that a dispute lacks the requisite immediacy. See Sierra, 363 F.3d at 1379 (considering the fact that there was no existing or draft advertising literature for the device in question in determining that the dispute was non-justiciable); Lang, 895 F.2d at 764-65 ([T]he accused infringers had not distributed sales literature, prepared to solicit orders, or engaged in any activity indicating that the ship would soon be ready for sea.). MedImmune makes clear, however, that all the circumstances must be considered when making a justiciability determination. 127 S.Ct. at 771. Where, as here, there is cogent evidence that a declaratory plaintiff has made meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity, a showing that the plaintiff has prepared draft sales literature or otherwise disclosed its products to potential customers is not an indispensable prerequisite. See Interdynamics, 698 F.2d at 172 (sufficient that although the plaintiff had not yet advertised or solicited orders for its proposed new product, there was significant evidence that the plaintiff intended to manufacture it).