Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gunn v. Minton (No. 11-1118, U.S. Sup) where the issue is the long debated question of proper jurisdiction for patent law legal malpractice cases. For more background, please see a December 3, 2012 post by my colleague Kelly Williams in this blog and to read the Amicus brief filed by the AIPLA. Read the transcript of yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-1118.pdf The central question is whether legal malpractice claims against attorneys representing the inventors, for failing to raise an “experimental use” defense to the “on-sale bar” doctrine, constituted a question of exclusive state law, or one of exclusive federal jurisdiction and law – like traditionally all Patent Law issues. The issue turns on whether such a state court claim can create or affect Federal patent rights. Our friends at Lexis-Nexis have summarized the oral argument and issues at this link: http://t.co/GaRLnbwN
We will follow this case closely: For more information, please contact Henry M. Sneath, Esq. chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. in Pittsburgh, Pa. 412-288-4013 or hsneath@psmn.com Firm Website: www.psmn.com Blog at: www.pitiptechblog.com or follow him on Twitter @picadiosneath
Yeah i heard about it. Although this decision involves a claim for legal malpractice, it potentially affects similar cases where a state law claim implicates a matter of patent law but is not a traditional patent law claim. That includes cases involving contractual inventorship disputes, patent assignments, patent licenses, and trade disparagement claims. It may also have an immediate effect in areas where the Federal Circuit has chosen to develop its own case law–antitrust, for example–rather than to apply the law of the regional Circuit where the case originally was filed. With Gunn, the Supreme Court now makes clear that for “arising under” jurisdiction to exist, the patent question must be “substantial,” in that it at least must apply outside of the fact-specific dispute between the parties at hand.
http://www.lexero.com/