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

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.