Federal Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Legal Malpractice Action Arising Out of Patent Infringement Claim
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 1 min read
Jan 26, 2012
Minton v. Gunn, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2011 WL 6276121 (Tex. 2011)
Brief Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim arising out of underlying patent infringement litigation.
Complete Summary
A former client brought a state law legal malpractice action against his former attorney, alleging that the lawyer had negligently failed to timely plead and brief the experimental-use exception to an on-sale bar to patentability of the client’s software in the client’s underlying patent infringement claim. After the trial court granted summary judgment to the former attorney, the client appealed. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment.
The Supreme Court of Texas held that the resolution of a federal issue of the applicability of the experimental-use exception was necessary in the legal malpractice claim, and that the exception was a disputed and a substantial issue in the legal malpractice case. After analyzing the requirements of federal jurisdiction under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2007 decisions in Air Measurement Technologies, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 504 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Immunocept, LLP v. Fulbright and Jaworski, LLP,504 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Supreme Court of Texas ultimately held that the former client’s legal malpractice action arising out of the underlying patent infringement claims was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Significance of Opinion
This opinion is noteworthy for the fact that along with the majority of courts that have addressed this issue, the Supreme Court of Texas held that legal malpractice claims arising out of patent infringement claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, as long as a substantial and disputed issue of patent law is at issue.
For further information, please contact Terrence P. McAvoy.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Featured Insights

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Event
May 7, 2026 - May 9, 2026
Anshuman Vaidya Presents on IRS Criminal Tax Enforcement Priorities at the ABA Tax Meeting

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026





