Supreme Court shoots down Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction standard

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Supreme Court shoots down Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction standard

The Supreme Court has held that a malpractice case involving an underlying patent claim is not exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal courts

The case, Gunn v Minton, involved a malpractice claim brought by Vernon Minton against Jerry Gunn of Williams Squire & Wren, James Wren of Slusser & Frost and William Slusser of Slusser Wilson & Partridge, for allegedly missing a deadline to file an argument, thereby waiving that argument and losing Minton’s patent case.

While Minton was appealing his malpractice case to a Texas appellate court, the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases (involving Akin Gump and Fulbright & Jaworski) that “legal malpractice claims with a substantive patent-related issue have federal jurisdiction”, according to the Supreme Court opinion.

As a result, Minton attempted to dismiss his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Texas Supreme Court ultimately agreed with him. The attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that “patent-related legal malpractice claims should not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts because state interests outweigh federal interests in resolving malpractice cases”.

The Court agreed. “As we recognized a century ago, ‘[t]he Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject-matter of the controversy’,” said the majority.

Commenters on Patently O had varying takes on the case. NWPA said:

The SCOTUS just smacked the Fed. Cir. again. If Congress wants to fix the patent system, they should remove patent law from SCOTUS jurisdiction….Get the SCOTUS out of patent law.

But IP litigator John McNett of Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry felt the decision was correct:

What a delight to read the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, putting a proper perspective on [what is meant by] arising under jurisdiction

Jane Webre of Scott Douglass & McConnico represented the attorneys in the case, while Thomas Michel of Griffith Jay & Michel represented Minton.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article