District Court Holds on to State Law Claims Despite Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claim

October 10, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

The lawsuit originally consisted of three federal claims (namely, patent infringement, correction of inventorship and Lanham Act violations) and eight state law claims, many of which were related to the patent-in-suit. As the litigation progressed, two of the three federal claims were dismissed. Later, after the close of fact discovery, the court granted summary judgment as to the third federal claim, leaving only the state law claims in contention. In addition to moving for summary judgment, the defendants requested that the court dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no federal claims remained.

The court denied the defendants’ request. Central to the court’s analysis was the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Under that doctrine, a court does not automatically lose supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims fall away. Instead, courts take a pragmatic, discretionary approach that allows federal courts to hear state law claims arising from a common nucleus of operative facts as federal claims before the court. In exercising its discretion, courts consider factors including judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties. Here, the court’s justification for retaining jurisdiction hinged on several factors, including the advanced stage of the proceedings and the court’s deep familiarity with the case. Litigation had been ongoing for over four years and discovery was complete. Further, judicial economy weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction because dismissal and state refiling would cause significant delays, burden another court with a complex fact pattern and impose a large financial burden on the parties. The court found these elements to weigh strongly in favor of the court retaining jurisdiction.

Moreover, there was strong interconnection between the state and federal claims. Most of the state claims—including fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty, both related to a patent assignment—revolved around the development of, and rights to, the same patent, just as the dismissed federal claims did. This relatedness further justified the court’s decision to maintain jurisdiction. The court also noted that the state law issues did not involve complex or novel questions of state law that would be better suited for a state court to decide. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, choosing to hear all remaining state law claims in the case.

Practice Tip: Even if all federal law claims are dropped from a case in which a court has exercised pendent jurisdiction over state law claims, a court can exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. In that circumstance, parties should recognize that pendent jurisdiction is a matter of judicial discretion and not one of plaintiff’s right.

JT IP Holding, LLC v. Florence, No. 20-cv-10433, 2024 WL 4190044 (D. Mass. Sept. 12, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.