Gunn v. Minton
Appearance
Gunn v. Minton | |
---|---|
Argued January 26, 2013 Decided February 20, 2013 | |
Full case name | Jerry W. Gunn, et al., Petitioners v. Vernon F. Minton |
Docket no. | 11-1118 |
Citations | 568 U.S. 251 (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | Plaintiff loses malpractice suit, TX St. Ct.; Petitioner files motion for hearing in Federal Court; Case affirmed to Federal Court Tex Sp. Ct. |
Subsequent | TX Sp. Ct. overturned, remanded to Texas state courts for further proceedings. |
Holding | |
28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over a case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents,” does not deprive the state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in a patent case. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013),[1] is a US patent law case. The case dealt with the question of jurisdiction of patent law litigation in regard to attorney malpractice.[2] In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that federal laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to cases involving patents does not preclude the ability of state courts to hear cases related to but not involving patents.[3] The case was remanded to the Texas state courts for further proceedings.[1]
References
- ^ a b Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ "Jerry W. Gunn, et al., v. Vernon F. Minton - LII Supreme Court Bulletin - LII / Legal Information Institute". Retrieved August 1, 2014.
- ^ "Gunn v. Minton will impact future patent malpractice cases - Lexology". Retrieved August 1, 2014.
External links
- Text of Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)