Malpractice Cases Against Patent Lawyers Stay in State Court, as Supreme Court Continues to Refine Reach of Grable

21 February 2013 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

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 “federal question” jurisdiction over claims arising under state law. Gunn v. Minton, No. 11-1118 (Feb. 20, 2013).

Historically, the test of whether a claim “arises under” federal law, so as to confer original jurisdiction on district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, has looked to which sovereign created the cause of action. If federal law creates the cause of action asserted, there is federal jurisdiction to resolve it. See American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916). The other side of the coin is that generally, if state law is the source of the cause of action, it does not “arise under” federal law. Law school Federal Jurisdiction classes have long agonized students by focusing on the few exceptions (on both sides) to this general rule.

The Court’s 2005 decision in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U. S. 308, upheld federal jurisdiction over a quiet title action (obviously, a state law claim) because the case turned on whether the procedures that the IRS uses in tax sales violate due process, so as to prevent the passage of good title to the buyer. Since then, lower courts have struggled with how far the Grable exception to the general rule goes. In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that malpractice cases against patent attorneys must be litigated in federal court because (applying a Grable analysis), they “arise under any Act of Congress related to patents,” within the meaning of the (linguistically identical) jurisdictional grant in 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). See Air Measurement Technologies, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 504 F. 3d 1262 (2007). Following the Federal Circuit’s lead, the Texas Supreme Court deprived the patent lawyers in Gunn of a victory on the merits in a suit filed by their former client in state court by ordering the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 355 S. W. 3d 634 (2011).

The unanimous Supreme Court, in a typically succinct opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the grant of exclusive original jurisdiction to federal district courts in § 1338 does not extend to legal malpractice claims involving patent work, reversing the Texas court and effectively overruling the Federal Circuit precedent as well.

The Gunn opinion helpfully imposes some much-needed structure on Grable. There will be federal jurisdiction over a state law claim, the Court holds, “if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Slip op. at 6. The outcome in Gunn itself turns on the “substantiality” test, properly understood as looking not (as the Texas court had done) to the importance of the issue to the parties in the case — the patent law issue would always meet this test if it were necessarily raised and actually disputed — but to “the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole.” Id. at 8. Gunn is the second Supreme Court case (Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U. S. 677, 699 (2006), was the other) to hold that Grable did not create a broad exception to the general rule that cases do not “arise under” federal law when state law creates the cause of action sued on.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.