REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Dellow 11236306 - (D) DESHPANDE 112(1)/103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SALEHI, HELAI
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11626331 - (D) HILL 102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. A, PHI DIEU TRAN
3652 Ex Parte Hwang et al 10956389 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland IP) LOWE, MICHAEL S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Lewis et al 11236315 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SCRUGGS, ROBERT J
3777 Ex Parte Tian et al 10881924 - (D) ADAMS 102 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY CHAO, ELMER M
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Hane 10667329 - (D) ZECHER 103 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI
2492 Ex Parte Rustad et al 11206881 - (D) HOMERE 103/112(1) Rockwell Automation, Inc. SHEPPERD, ERIC W
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Schultz et al 11225680 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 IBM CORPORATION SUTEERAWONGSA, JARURAT
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Odom 11194766 - (D) FETTING 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BROWN, ALVIN L
3692 Ex Parte Bullard et al 11017504 - (D) FETTING 103 Klemchuk Kubasta LLP MONFELDT, SARAH M
3694 Ex Parte Morris 11161899 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC TRAN, HAI
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Worrick et al 11787827 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MICHALSKI, SEAN M
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 ZUMBOX, INC. Requester and Appellant v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001302 6,690,773 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. CRAVER, CHARLES R original WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex parte ETAGZ, INC. 90011244 6298332 09/306,077 SIU 102/103 PATE PIERCE & BAIRD LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original TESFAMARIAM, MUSSIE
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex parte WATCHGUARD ISLE, LLC 90011706 6518878 09/538,323 CURCURI 102/103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP BASEHOAR, ADAM L original POPE, DARYL C
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 CYBERLINK CORP. Requester and Appellant v. GETAC TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95000254 6765788 10/352,676 SIU 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP original NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION BANANKHAH, MAJID A original DUONG, HUNG V
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
VACATED and REMANDED
1103 FORRESTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., AND KEITH E. FORRESTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1686 4,737,356 06/935,899 5,430,233 07/673,825 5,245,114 07/702,787 DYK subject-matter jurisdiction Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP; Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A. original BANNER, BIRCH, MCKIE & BECKETT; BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. STRAUB, GARY P; VANOY, TIMOTHY C; VANOY, TIMOTHY C
In Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., the Supreme Court held that a claim may “aris[e] under” the patent laws even where patent law did not create the cause of action, provided that the “well-pleaded complaint establishes . . . that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law.” 486 U.S. 800, 808–09 (1988). Thus, even a cause of action created by state law may “aris[e] under” federal patent law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 if it involves a patent law issue that 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.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013).
In its recent decision in Gunn v. Minton, the Supreme Court made clear that state law legal malpractice claims will “rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law,” even if they require resolution of a substantive question of federal patent law. 568 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1065, 1067. The Court reasoned that while such claims may “necessarily raise disputed questions of patent law,” those questions are “not substantial in the relevant sense.” Id. at 1065–66. The Court emphasized that “[b]ecause of the backward-looking nature of a legal malpractice claim, the question is posed in a merely hypothetical sense” and that “[n]o matter how the state courts resolve that hypothetical ‘case within a case,’ it will not change the real-world result of the prior federal patent litigation.” Id. at 1066–67. Because the malpractice claim portended no forwardlooking consequences and created no real possibility of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts, and in view of the “‘especially great’” state interest in regulating lawyers, the Court concluded that the patent law issues were not sufficiently “substantial” to create federal jurisdiction. See id. at 1066–68 (quoting Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975)).
