By Erin Giglia
Isabelle M. Smith and Todd W. Smith recently published an article in the OC Lawyer titled “It Was My Understanding There Would Be No Patent Law!” The article discusses a new case, Gunn v. Minton, 185 L. Ed. 2d 72 (2013), in which the Supreme Court held that legal malpractice claims based on underlying substantive patent law should proceed in state court, not federal court.
Isabelle and Todd discuss the Gunn case, noting that the Supreme Court applied the 4-part test set forth in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005): “Does the state law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?” In Gunn, the Supreme Court held that “the underlying federal patent issue is not substantial to the federal system.” The Court further determined that the underlying patent case has no bearing on patent law and would not set patent law precedent.
The article also discusses implications to practioners following the Gunn case – specifically that there is an increased likelihood that professional liability cases pending in federal court will be remanded to state court, that attorneys may face sanctions for attempting to remove professional liability cases to federal court even when the underlying case clearly presents federal issues, and that attorneys will need to educate state court judges on underlying federal issues.
“[L]itigators handling legal malpractice cases involving patent issues in state court may need to take steps to educate their state court judges on the underlying issues.”
To read the full article, please visit the OC Lawyer Magazine Digital Edition.

Discover more from Montage Legal Group
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You must be logged in to post a comment.