October Term 2001 · Docket 01-408
Does a patent counterclaim force federal appellate review?
The dispute centers on whether a patent counterclaim strips regional courts of jurisdiction.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Dabney argued the Federal Circuit overreached its jurisdiction.
He stated a patent counterclaim does not act like a removal petition.
Mr. Gowdey made a preliminary point about the case context.
He referenced the location of the parties involved.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 23-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the Federal Circuit's appellate power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-11
What each side wants
Holmes Group wants regional courts to keep jurisdiction.
Vornado wants the Federal Circuit to hear the appeal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
What each side says
Holmes argues a counterclaim does not act like a removal petition.
Vornado argues the Federal Circuit must review the patent issue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 23-25
Why it matters
This dispute defines which federal appellate court hears patent cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 23-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 31-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 31-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-14
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.