CAFC deals with patent law malpractice in Warrior Sports v. Dickinson Wright

Warrior Sports had filed a malpractice claim.

The Eastern District of
Michigan regarded Warrior’s claims as
raising only state law issues and therefore dismissed the
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

This dismissal was vacated by the CAFC.

Of relevance to patent practitioners is the fact that
the alleged malpractice was "inherited" by virtue of an
acquisition.

The ending text of the opinion states:

This case is thus akin to Air Measurement
Technologies, in which we held that when “proof of patent
infringement is necessary to show [plaintiff] would have
prevailed in the prior litigation, patent infringement is a
‘necessary element’ of [plaintiff’s] malpractice claim and
therefore apparently presents a substantial question of
patent law conferring § 1338 jurisdiction.” 504 F.3d at
1269. Because Warrior’s first claim arises under patent
law, we need not address its other claims, all of which are
properly before the district court as a matter of supple-
mental jurisdiction in light of the court’s jurisdiction over
the first claim. We therefore vacate the district court’s
dismissal order and remand for further proceedings.

Cross-reference:
Air Measurement Techs., Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, L.L.P., 504 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (Fed. Cir. 2007).