#antislapp

Gideon Korrell Explores Anti-SLAPP Protection in the IQE v. Newport Fab Ruling

On October 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, LLC, addressing an uncommon but increasingly important overlap between patent law and California’s anti-SLAPP statute. As Gideon Korrell explains, the decision clarifies both appellate procedure and how anti-SLAPP protections can apply when patent filings themselves are alleged to cause harm.

The ruling highlights how procedural doctrine can meaningfully shape outcomes in patent and trade secret disputes, an issue Gideon Korrell frequently emphasizes in his legal analysis.

A Rare Intersection of Patent Law and Anti-SLAPP Doctrine

The Federal Circuit addressed two questions that rarely converge so directly:

Whether denials of California anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable in cases within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction

Whether the district court properly applied California’s two-step anti-SLAPP framework when the alleged protected activity was patent prosecution

The court answered both decisively. It held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine and vacated the district court’s ruling for collapsing the statute’s required two-step inquiry.

According to Gideon Korrell, this clarification is particularly significant for litigants asserting or defending patent-related state-law claims in California.

Background: From NDA to Patent Dispute

IQE PLC develops wafer products used in semiconductor manufacturing. In 2015, IQE and Tower Semiconductor entered into a mutual non-disclosure agreement during exploratory business discussions. Several years later, the parties discussed a potential collaboration involving porous silicon technology.

IQE alleged that it disclosed confidential technical information during those discussions. The collaboration did not proceed, and Tower later filed multiple patent applications beginning in 2019. IQE claimed those filings disclosed its trade secrets and excluded IQE personnel as inventors.

In 2022, IQE sued in California federal court, asserting federal trade secret claims, a claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, and California state-law claims for trade secret misappropriation and interference. Tower responded with an anti-SLAPP motion targeting the state-law claims.

Jurisdiction Comes First: Why the Appeal Was Allowed

Before reaching the merits, the Federal Circuit addressed whether it had authority to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.

Applying Federal Circuit law, the court held that California anti-SLAPP denials satisfy all three elements of the collateral order doctrine:

The ruling conclusively determines whether the statute applies

The issue is separate from the merits of the underlying claims

The denial would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment

As Gideon Korrell has noted in other procedural contexts, early appellate review can significantly alter litigation dynamics, particularly where state procedural protections intersect with federal patent claims.

The Core Error: Collapsing the Two-Step Analysis

California’s anti-SLAPP statute requires courts to follow a strict sequence:

Determine whether the challenged claims arise from protected activity

If so, assess whether the plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing

The district court concluded that IQE’s claims arose from alleged trade secret theft rather than from Tower’s act of filing patent applications. The Federal Circuit disagreed.

Filing a patent application is an act in furtherance of the constitutional right to petition the government. At step one, courts must focus on the defendant’s conduct giving rise to liability, not on whether that conduct was allegedly wrongful.

By addressing alleged misappropriation at step one, the district court prematurely weighed the merits. As Gideon Korrell explains, allowing that approach would undermine the protective function of the anti-SLAPP statute.

What the Federal Circuit Did Not Decide

The court did not decide whether IQE could ultimately prevail at step two. Instead, it remanded the case for the district court to conduct the proper probability-of-success analysis in the first instance.

This restraint aligns with California appellate guidance and preserves the trial court’s role in evaluating the merits.

Practical Takeaways for Patent Litigants

The decision offers several lessons highlighted by Gideon Korrell:

Patent filings can qualify as protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute

Immediate appeals from anti-SLAPP denials are available in California cases

Plaintiffs should carefully consider how state-law claims are pleaded when they rely on patent prosecution conduct

Conclusion

In IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the proper application of California’s anti-SLAPP framework and clarified that patent-related conduct can fall within its scope. As Gideon Korrell observes, the case underscores how procedural rules often shape substantive patent outcomes.

A Nevada court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss brought by Wanderlei Silva against the UFC.  The lawsuit was brought by the UFC suing Silva for Defamation and Business Disparagement.  The case will go forward.

The hearing was moved up from its original hearing date of November 3rd.  Attorneys from the UFC sought to strike certain exhibits from the UFC motion to dismiss which included articles from MMA web sites that were attached to prove that Silva’s statements made through Facebook and YouTube were true.

This summer, the UFC filed a defamation lawsuit against Silver over statements he made alleging the UFC of “fight fixing.”

The court dismissed the UFC’s cause of action for business disparagement.  However, it granted the UFC the opportunity to amend the complaint. Thus, while it’s dismissed you may look for the UFC to file an amended complaint.

In addition, Silva’s attorneys argued that the UFC’s lawsuit was in violation of Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP statute which precludes lawsuits that seek to chill free speech on matters of public concern.  The court denied the Anti-SLAPP motion per stating that Silva’s statements on fight fixing “were not directly connected to public matters” which include the ongoing antitrust lawsuit and his own NAC lawsuit that is being appealed to the Nevada State Supreme Court.  

ESPN also reports that a part of the lawsuit related to monetary damages alleged by Zuffa.  Per ESPN’s Brett Okamoto, Silva’s attorneys argued that his comments about “fight fixing” were in good faith and broad encompassing matters like “asking an injured athlete to compete or ignoring drug test results.”  The court rejected the arguments citing the “plain English” definition of “fight fixing.”

We have a comprehensive breakdown of the Motion to Dismiss here.  It appears as though Silva’s legal team earned a minor win at the hearing in dismissing a claim.  However, look for the UFC to amend its complaint.  The case will now proceed with Silva’s team likely answering an amended complaint and then we will get to the discovery phase.  The marquee event will be the anticipated deposition of Silva.

New Post has been published on http://awesome-facts.net/ysk-which-states-in-the-u-s-have-anti-slapp-laws-and-those-that-do-not/

YSK which states in the U.S. have anti-SLAPP laws and those that do not.

YSK which states in the U.S. have anti-SLAPP laws and those that do not.

Anti-SLAPP laws are laws designed to prevent lawsuits known as SLAPP suits (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) that are used in an effort to silence anyone who is critical of that plaintiff. As a response, many states have passed laws that protect the speech of these critics, as seen on this website:

http://www.anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/

The map on this website shows red states with anti-SLAPP laws, while gray states on the map have not enacted any anti-SLAPP laws. It's a good thing to know if you intend to speak out against someone or a business whom you feel should be addressed publicly because of any controversial practices.

 "We regard the adoption of Bill 83 as vital to Ontario’s democracy as it will protect the public from meritless lawsuits intended to deter them from engaging in discussion on matters of public interest. Accordingly, we strongly urge the Ontario government to ensure the expeditious enactment of this important Bill."