Rising Confusion about "Arising Under" Jurisdiction in Patent Cases

By Gugliuzza, Paul R. | Emory Law Journal, January 1, 2019 | Go to article overview

Rising Confusion about "Arising Under" Jurisdiction in Patent Cases


Gugliuzza, Paul R., Emory Law Journal


Introduction

The federal district courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over cases "arising under" patent law.1 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over those same cases.2 At first blush, this regime seems simple: State courts may not hear patent cases, only federal courts can. And when there is an appeal in a patent case, it goes to the Federal Circuit, not one of the twelve regional circuits. Yet subject matter jurisdiction in patent cases is, surprisingly, one of the thorniest issues in all of civil procedure.

In a 2013 opinion holding that legal malpractice claims against patent attorneys do not fall within the federal courts' exclusive jurisdiction, Chief Justice Roberts noted that, in deciding the jurisdictional issue, "we do not paint on a blank canvas."3 "Unfortunately," he continued, "the canvas looks like one that Jackson Pollock got to first."4 In an earlier Supreme Court case on the scope of the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction, the Court had to step in to stop what it called a "game ofjurisdictional ping-pong" in which the dispute had been transferred from the Federal Circuit to the Seventh Circuit and back again to the Federal Circuit,5 with each court "adamantly disavowing] jurisdiction" and each court "insist[ing] that the other's jurisdictional decision [was] 'clearly wrong.'"6

Despite frequent Supreme Court decisions on patent jurisdiction and recent congressional amendments to the relevant statutes,7 confusion persists. Indeed, as the title of this Article suggests,8 it seems to be getting worse. In February 2019, in a decision that attracted widespread attention from both patent lawyers and scholars, the Fifth Circuit refused to decide an appeal that had been transferred to it by the Federal Circuit, deriding the Federal Circuit's ruling declining jurisdiction as not just wrong but "implausible" and transferring the case back to the Federal Circuit.9 A month later, the Federal Circuit, despite numerous "flaws" it identified in the Fifth Circuit's transfer opinion, reluctantly accepted jurisdiction, seemingly ending this particular match of jurisdictional table tennis.10 But the harsh words the Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit traded about each other's understanding of the relevant jurisdictional doctrine-as well as clear and persistent conflicts in the Federal Circuit's own jurisdictional precedent11-suggests that the Supreme Court, or perhaps the Federal Circuit en banc, will eventually have to step in to alleviate the rising confusion over arising under jurisdiction in patent cases.12

To be sure, in many patent disputes, subject matter jurisdiction is not seriously contested. A case in which a plaintiff asserts a claim of patent infringement, for example, plainly arises under patent law.13 The same goes for claims seeking declaratory judgments that a patent is invalid or not infringed.14 Infringement and declaratory judgment claims are actually created by federal patent law,15 so there is no question that cases containing those claims fall within the federal courts' and the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction.16 But confusion occurs because many cases that do not include claims for patent infringement nevertheless implicate patent law and therefore potentially "arise under" patent law for jurisdictional purposes.17 For example, plaintiffs often base antitrust claims on patent-related conduct.18 Though patent-related antitrust claims are usually (but not always) asserted under federal statutes such as the Sherman Act, claims created by state law can raise patent issues, too.19 Common examples include suits for breach of a patent licensing contract,20 tort claims based on false allegations of patent infringement,21 and malpractice claims against lawyers who litigated a prior infringement dispute or who prosecuted a patent.22

Under current law, it is often unclear whether these patent-related cases "arise under" patent law for the purpose of triggering the federal district courts' and the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Rising Confusion about "Arising Under" Jurisdiction in Patent Cases
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.