Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of October 05, 2009

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Minton v. Gunn,   No. 02-06-00443-CV    (Oct. 8, 2009)   (Cayce, C.J., joined by Gardner, J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   Legal malpractice lawsuit involving the litigation of an underlying patent infringement claim does not require the resolution of a substantial federal patent-law issue. Therefore, federal courts do not possess exclusive jurisdiction over Appellant’s state law claim. The trial court did not err in granting a take-nothing summary judgment against Appellant on his legal malpractice claim based on the “on sale bar” doctrine because there is no evidence that the sale of Appellant’s patent was for experimental use.

Dissent:   Because Minton’s state legal malpractice claim requires the hypothetical adjudication of the merits of his underlying federal patent infringement lawsuit, it presents a disputed, substantial question of federal patent law. Congress considered the federal-state division of labor and struck a balance in favor of the federal courts in suits requiring adjudication of patent infringement. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338, jurisdiction exists in federal courts over Minton’s state legal malpractice claim.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «