In citing Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 706 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the CAFC reversed the district court in Danisco v. Novozymes.
The CAFC noted:
The record demonstrates that a definite and concrete
patent dispute exists between the parties.
As to the district court:
The district court’s categorical distinction between
pre- and post-issuance conduct is therefore
with the Supreme Court’s insistence on applying a flexible
totality of the circumstances test, its rejection of technical
bright line rules in the context of justiciability, and our own precedent.
See, e.g., Matthews Int’l Corp. v. Biosafe
Eng’g, LLC, 695 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012)