United States Federal Circuit

Where determination of claim scope is a necessary, substantial, and contested element of a malpractice claim stemming from patent prosecution, there is "arising under" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1338. In a legal malpractice case based on alleged errors in patent prosecution, summary judgment for defendant-firm is affirmed where: 1) jurisdiction was proper under section 1338; and 2) the malpractice claim was barred by the Texas statute of limitations.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/15/2007
• Published 10/15/2007

Judges

• MICHEL, Chief Judge., Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and RADER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jon R. Stark, Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP, of Menlo Park, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief was Bernard H. Chao. Of counsel on the brief were Michael P. Lynn, Jeremy A. Fielding, and Aaron Miller, Lynn Tillotson & Pinker, LLP, of Dallas, TX.


• For Appellees:
  
• David M. Gunn, Beck Redden & Secrest, L.L.P., of Houston, TX, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were David J. Beck, Russell S. Post, and Constance H. Pfeiffer.