What happens when two courts of appeal each think the other has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal? Confusion and inter-circuit criticism. The latest chapter in such a dispute between the Federal and Fifth Circuits on the...more
ANTENNASYS, INC. v. AQYR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Before, O’Malley, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire - Summary: The Federal Circuit held that claim construction issues...more
Johnny Cash’s famous “I Walk the Line” song draws a line emphasizing how difficult it can be to stay faithful with temptations “on the road” as the singer travels on tour. Similarly, patent license drafters and litigators can...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Inspired Development Grp, LLC v. Inspired Products Grp., LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1616 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019) - Our first patent case of the week is not, according to the Federal Circuit, a...more
A game of “hot potato” between the US Courts of Appeals for the Federal and Fifth Circuits has been resolved, ending a disagreement over the scope of the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. After a patent infringement defendant...more
In Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., No. 2016-2746 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2018), the Federal Circuit considered whether it or a regional circuit had jurisdiction over an appeal of a case raising only Walker Process antitrust...more
The Federal Circuit held Walker Process Claims without a “substantial” patent issue can be heard outside the Federal Circuit based on the US Supreme Court decision in Gunn v. Minton....more
For nearly two decades, the Federal Circuit has applied a lenient standard for federal jurisdiction that routinely sweeps state law claims into the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts merely because the claims...more
In This Issue: Patents - Supreme Court: State Court Has Jurisdiction over a Legal Malpractice Claim; Nothing Non-Obvious About Applying Pre-Existing Technology to the Internet; The Federal Circuit Is Not the...more
In Gunn v. Minton, the Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over patent malpractice claims. Under 28 USC § 1338(a), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases “arising under any...more
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Gunn v. Minton, determined that a Texas state court had jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim, even though resolving the claim required the state court to address an issue of...more
On February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Gunn v. Minton. The heart of this matter is whether the state-based malpractice action based upon an underlying patent infringement lawsuit may be...more
In the course of deciding that malpractice cases against patent lawyers belong in state courts (when there is no diversity of citizenship), the United States Supreme Court has issued an important ruling on the scope of...more
On February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the critical question of where plaintiffs can or must sue when their claims implicate patent law but are not traditional patent law claims. See Gunn v....more
A patent issue exerted its Circe-like effect on the Supreme Court again today in Gunn v. Minton, a decision overruling the Texas Supreme Court on the question of whether the existence of a patent issue in a legal malpractice...more
On January 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Gunn. The heart of the matter is whether the state-based malpractice action may be heard in state court or whether it must be heard in...more
Earlier we reported on both the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in the Gunn v. Minton case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas and the submission of Petitioner's and several supporting amicus curiae briefs. Gunn is...more