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

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Mar 13, 2026
DOJ Settlement with Car Retailer Highlights SCRA Repossession Risks

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Mar 11, 2026
Compliance Considerations for GDPR Consent in Biotech Clinical Research

Press Release
Mar 4, 2026
Marcia Mueller Named the 2026 Mentorship Award Winner by YWCA Northwestern Illinois

Press Release
Mar 3, 2026
Hinshaw Announces New Administrative Leadership Appointments

In The News
Feb 27, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Examine Implications for Nursing Homes of New Illinois Aid-in-Dying Law

In The News
Feb 24, 2026
Lucy Wang Authors Law360 “Expert Analysis” on Why Attorney Civility Means More in 2026

Press Release
Feb 13, 2026
Hinshaw Team Wins Appeal in Criminal Indictment of Waukegan City Clerk Janet Kilkelly

Press Release
Feb 10, 2026
Hinshaw Trial Team Secures $0 Defense Verdict in $15 Million Auto Accident Trial

Press Release
Feb 5, 2026
Hinshaw Legal Team Secures Directed Verdict in Florida Equine Fraud Case

Press Release
Feb 4, 2026
Hinshaw Celebrates 17 Consecutive Years of Being Named an Equality 100 Award Winner

![[Video] New Regulatory Priorities Under Mayor Mamdani’s NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection](/a/web/oHiTWa7kRy3Ht1brq6k4BT/bkMx39/new-york-city-skyline.jpg)
