This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to MR. MICHEL, petitioner Jerry W. Gunn argues that the case should follow *Grable*, allowing federal courts to hear legal‑malpractice claims that arise from substantial issues of federal patent law.
Background and question before the Court
During oral argument, Justice Ginsburg asked, “But what was the substantial Federal matter in Grable?”
What each side argues
Petitioner (Jerry W. Gunn)
According to MR. MICHEL, petitioner argues that, following *Grable*, legal‑malpractice cases involving substantial federal patent‑law issues should be heard in federal court.
What happened at oral argument
According to MR. MICHEL, mR. MICHEL responded, “No, Your Honor. It does not.”
MR. MICHEL argued that, following *Grable*, legal‑malpractice cases arising from substantial federal patent‑law issues should be heard in federal court.
Justice Ginsburg asked, “But what was the substantial Federal matter in Grable?”
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9f38d12a495d41f4a1af-r1-49be5a76074988b6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.