United States: In The Crosshairs: District Courts Utilize Gunn To Dismiss Patent-Related Legal Malpractice Claims For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In an opinion and order dated May 7, 2013, the Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a legal malpractice action alleging that a law firm and one of its lawyers (the "Law Firm") violated certain regulations governing lawyers who practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO"). In so doing, Judge Goldberg became the latest district court judge to rely upon the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gunn v. Minton to conclude that the federal courts do not possess subject matter jurisdiction to hear legal malpractice actions relating to patent cases.

Lice Lifters, LLC v. Barrack, No. 12-5777 (E.D. Pa.) involved a dispute between Ilene Steinberg and Michele Barrack, each a 50 percent owner of Lice Lifters, a company that provides lice removal services.1 When they formed Lice Lifters, Steinberg and Barrack entered into an Operating Agreement pursuant to which Steinberg agreed to contribute to the company certain intellectual property; namely, a topical solution and process that Steinberg had developed for the removal of lice. Lice Lifters hired the Law Firm to provide the company with various legal services. Among other things, the Law Firm pursued an application in the USPTO to obtain a patent on the intellectual property.

During the two years following the formation of Lice Lifters, the relationship between Steinberg and Barrack deteriorated to the point where Barrack, in her own name and on behalf of the company, initiated a lawsuit against Steinberg in state court. The suit alleged that Steinberg had breached the Operating Agreement and violated her fiduciary duties to the company. The Law Firm represented both Lice Lifters and Barrack in the state court action.

In response, Steinberg, in her own name and on behalf of Lice Lifters, sued Barrack and the Law Firm in federal court. The suit alleged, among other claims, that Barrack had infringed Lice Lifters' copyrights and trademarks and breached the Operating Agreement. With respect to the Law Firm, Steinberg claimed that, in the proceeding in the USPTO to obtain a patent on the invention that Steinberg had assigned to Lice Lifters, the Law Firm was representing Steinberg and, therefore, owed her a fiduciary duty.2 Steinberg alleged that the Law Firm breached that fiduciary duty by representing Barrack in Barrack's state court lawsuit against Steinberg.

After Steinberg and Barrack settled their disputes out of court, Steinberg moved to amend her complaint to state a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Law Firm. The Law Firm opposed the motion to amend, arguing, among other things, that the amendment would be futile because the federal court lacked jurisdiction over Steinberg's sole claim — a state law legal malpractice claim between non-diverse parties.

In response, Steinberg argued that her malpractice claim was based on the Law Firm's alleged violation of federal law; namely, provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") that set forth the standards of conduct for lawyers who practice before the USPTO. Specifically, Steinberg cited to 37 C.F.R. § 10.66, which provides that:

(a) A practitioner shall decline proffered employment if the exercise of the practitioner's independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered employment, or if it would be likely to involve the practitioner in representing differing interests [and] (b) A practitioner shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of the practitioner's independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the practitioner's representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve the practitioner in representing differing interests... .

According to Steinberg, the Law Firm violated these CFR provisions by accepting a representation adverse to her (the state court action) while concurrently representing her in the USPTO. Therefore, argued Steinberg, her claim involved a question of federal law over which the court had subject matter jurisdiction.

While Steinberg's motion for leave to amend her complaint was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Gunn v. Minton, No. 11-1118, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1612 (Feb. 20, 2013). In Gunn, the owner of a patent brought a malpractice action against the lawyers he hired to pursue an infringement suit. The patent owner claimed that, due to his former lawyers' alleged malpractice, his infringement claim was dismissed and his patent was invalidated. By the time the Gunn case reached the Supreme Court, the sole issue before the Court was "whether a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in the handling of a patent case must be brought in federal court" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides the federal courts with jurisdiction over actions arising under the laws of the United States, and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides the federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over claims relating to patents.

The Court in Gunn began its analysis by recognizing that the federal courts have original jurisdiction over a "special and small category" of claims that, although founded in state law, are nevertheless deemed to "arise under" federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Specifically, "federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue 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."

Applying those factors to the claim before it, the Gunn Court held that the federal issue in the case — whether the patent owner would have prevailed on his infringement claim but for the alleged malpractice of his counsel — was not "substantial" because it was of no importance to the federal patent law system as a whole. The Court also held that resolution of the claim by a federal court would disrupt the federal-state balance because the states have an especially strong interest in regulating the lawyers and other professionals they license. Indeed, based on its analysis in the Gunn case, the Court was comfortable predicting that "state legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of § 1338(a)."

Judge Goldberg had no difficulty concluding that, under the rationale of the Gunn Court, the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear Steinberg's malpractice claim against the Law Firm. Judge Goldberg held that "the federal issue implicated by Steinberg's state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty is not a 'substantial' one [because] the provisions of the CFR relied upon by Plaintiff merely incorporate common state-law duties that an attorney owes to a client." Judge Goldberg also held that resolution of Steinberg's claims would not be of importance to the federal patent law system as a whole because "to the extent resolution of a federal issue will be required, the inquiry would be fact-specific and relevant only to the parties." Having concluded that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Goldberg dismissed Steinberg's claims against the Law Firm.

Judge Goldberg's opinion added to a growing body of post-Gunn rulings that have dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction malpractice actions against patent attorneys. For instance, in Axcess International, Inc. v. Baker Botts, L.L.P., No. 10-cv-1383 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2013), the court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction claims that a law firm violated the USPTO's ethics rules by obtaining patents on similar technology for two different clients. The court noted that "to find federal jurisdiction merely because the plaintiff can allege a violation of a USPTO Rule (that will in most cases be a violation of a similar state rule) would effectively eliminate the Supreme Court's holding in Gunn and circumvent state jurisdiction." See also Patriot Universal Holding, LLC v. McConnell, No. 12-C-0907, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49596 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 5, 2013) (holding that, in light of Gunn, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim that its former law firm breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff by assisting plaintiff's competitors with patent matters); Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory v. Ropes & Gray LLP, No. 11-cv-10128 (D. Mass. Mar. 14, 2013) (holding that Gunn required dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of legal malpractice claim based on patent issues); Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Townsend Townsend and Crew LLP, No. 10-cv-2011, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32586 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013) (relying on Gunn to remand patent malpractice action to state court).

Footnotes

1. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP was counsel for the Law Firm in the Lice Lifters case.

2. The Law Firm denied that it represented Steinberg in the USPTO and, therefore, disputed that it owed Steinberg a fiduciary duty. To the contrary, the Law Firm explained that, although Steinberg was identified as the inventor of the intellectual property in the patent application it was pursuing in the USPTO, the Law Firm's client was Lice Lifters, the assignee of the intellectual property, not Steinberg. The Court never reached this issue.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions