Bouncing jurisdiction between CA11 and CAFC in Krauser case

A significant point


Therefore, BHI’s second jurisdictional theory
fails every element of the test described by the Supreme
Court in Gunn. The resolution of the inventorship question
is neither “necessary” nor “substantial” to the case. A
claim of ownership does not necessarily require consideration
of patent law inventorship. A state law contract
claim or quantum meruit claim may entitle Krauser to
royalties from the Dental Implant System even if he is not
listed as an “inventor” on the face of the patent. Given
that there is no federal issue in this case, an exercise of
federal question jurisdiction would certainly disrupt
“Congress’s intended division of labor between state and
federal courts.” Gunn, 133 S.Ct. at 1065.



Outcome



In summary, there is no plausible claim that this
court has jurisdiction.
TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1461.Opinion.6-2-2014.1.PDF