241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916)
This is a suit begun in a state court, removed to the United States Court, and then, on motion to remand by the plaintiff, dismissed by the latter court.1 There is a proper certificate and the case comes here direct from the District Court.2
The plaintiff alleges that it owns, manufactures and sells a certain pump, has or has applied for a patent for it, and that the pump is known as the best in the market.3 It then alleges that the defendants have falsely and maliciously libeled and slandered the plaintiff's title to the pump by stating that the pump and certain parts thereof are infringements upon the defendant’s pump and certain parts thereof and that without probable cause they have brought suits against some parties who are using the plaintiff’s pump and that they are threatening suits against all who use it.4 Actual damage to the plaintiff in its business is alleged to the extent of $50,000 and punitive damages to the same amount are asked.5
The defendants had stated to people that the plaintiff's pump infringed the defendants' patent.6 The suit was begun in state court after the defendants brought suits without probable cause against some users and threatened suits against all.7
Whether a suit alleging libel and slander of title to a pump, based on statements that the pump infringes the defendants' patent and on threats to sue users, arises under the patent laws of the United States for jurisdictional purposes?8
No. The plaintiff's declaration alleges that the defendants falsely and maliciously libeled and slandered the plaintiff's title by stating that the pump infringed the defendants' patent and by threatening suits against users.11 This caused $50,000 in actual damages, and the plaintiff sought the same amount in punitive damages.12 The facts establish that the suit was begun in state court after the defendants brought suits without probable cause against some users and threatened suits against all.13 The plaintiff need prove nothing about any patent to establish its case because the wrong depends on state law where the act is done.14
The District Court dismissed after removal on the ground that the cause arose under patent laws.15 However, the material statement is merely evidence, and the cause of action remains state-law libel or slander of title.16
The suit does not arise under the patent laws of the United States for jurisdictional purposes.17
Related opinions on this issue
Justice McKenna dissents from the majority opinion in this case. He is of the opinion that the case involves a direct and substantial controversy under the patent laws.18 McKenna's view diverges from the majority because he sees the core of the dispute as arising from claims of patent infringement rather than purely state-law tort.
The majority holds that the cause of action is created by state law even though patent issues may arise in defense, but McKenna believes the patent laws are directly and substantially involved in the controversy presented by the pleadings. His bottom line is that federal jurisdiction should attach due to the patent laws being directly involved in the case.