October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1118
Can a patent malpractice suit stay in state court?
The dispute centers on whether federal courts must hear patent malpractice claims filed under state law.
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
Ms. Webre argued that federal jurisdiction requires a substantial federal issue.
She cited the Grable decision to support her position on jurisdiction.
Mr. Michel agreed with the premise of the federal interest argument.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-35
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal jurisdiction over state-law claims involving patent issues.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the case returned to state court.
the opposing sides want the case to remain in federal court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the federal issue is not substantial enough for federal jurisdiction.
the opposing sides argue patent law is a complex specialty requiring federal oversight.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the federal issue is substantial beyond this specific case.
Justice Alito asked why the complexity of patent law does not favor federal jurisdiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-35
Why it matters
This case defines which courts handle patent-related state law claims. It affects access to state courts for legal malpractice disputes. It shapes the balance between state and federal judicial power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
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 11, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-35
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 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-43
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.