1. “Whether the district court erred by declining to dismiss Micron’s BFA claims against Katana and Longhorn and by ordering that Katana’s patent infringement claims against Micron cannot proceed until Katana or Longhorn posts an $8 million bond where (i) the Idaho Act and its bond provision on their face and as applied are preempted by federal law, and (ii) Micron’s factual allegations failed to state a plausible claim of the minimum objective bad faith required by this Court’s preemption decisions.”
2. “Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion in granting Micron’s motion filed against Longhorn for a multi-million-dollar bond under state law (i) based primarily on Katana’s filing of a patent infringement complaint in federal court, (ii) considering only Micron’s allegations assumed to be true under a ‘reasonable possibility’ standard, and (iii) wholly disregarding the contravening evidence and facts filed and argued by Longhorn.”
3. “Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion in ordering, based on a Micron motion filed against Longhorn alone, that Katana may not prosecute its patent infringement case against Micron in federal court until Longhorn or Katana posts an $8 million bond pursuant to an Idaho state law purporting to regulate patent infringement complaints filed in federal court.”
