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
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)


