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

In The News
Oct 23, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses Potential Impact of Proposition 44 on California Community Clinics

In The News
Oct 21, 2026
Scott Seaman Says Walmart Ruling is an "Aberration" in the Opioid Insurance Battle

Event
October 21 – 23, 2026
D.L. Morriss Presents on International Banking Litigation and AI Regulation

Press Release
Oct 20, 2026
Seasoned Litigator Joins Hinshaw's Aviation and Aerospace Team in Chicago

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 19, 2026
Refile, Repeat: Ohio’s Savings Statute Allows for Unlimited Bites of a Time-Barred Claim

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 16, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 ACVL Conference for the Auto Finance Industry

Press Release
Oct 16, 2026
Nia Binns Re-Appointed Health and Wellness Committee Co-Chair of the BWLA

In The News
Oct 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Explains How Bond Request Spurred AG Settlement in Paramount Merger

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 15, 2026
OCC Releases Debanking Report on Largest Banks; CFPB Announces Follow-On Initiative




