Also known as: under jurisdiction
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A Latin phrase indicating that a claim or controversy lies within a court's jurisdictional authority. The phrase directs attention to whether the plaintiff's properly pleaded cause of action supplies the necessary basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Igor Ito sued Innovate Pharmaceuticals in state court for breach of a supply contract under state law. Innovate answered that federal drug approval rules excused its performance and filed a counterclaim under federal patent law. Innovate removed the case. The federal court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint itself contained no federal claim.
Irene Ingalls sued Icarus Aviation in state court alleging breach of an aircraft maintenance contract governed by state law. The complaint mentioned federal aviation safety standards only to anticipate Icarus's expected defense. The federal court held that the claim was not infra jurisdictionem because no federal issue appeared on the face of the complaint.
In 1994, the Internal Revenue Service seized real property in Michigan belonging to Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc., to satisfy the company's federal tax delinquency. The IRS provided notice of the seizure to Grable by certified mail, which Grable received before selling the property to Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. Grable did not redeem the property within the 180-day statutory period following the sale. After that period had passed, the Government gave Darue a quitclaim deed. Five years later, Grable brought a quiet title action in Michigan state court against Darue. Grable claimed that Darue’s record title was invalid because the IRS had failed to notify Grable of its seizure of the property in the exact manner required by federal statute. Grable asserted that the statute required personal service rather than service by certified mail. Darue removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The district court declined to remand after finding that the claim posed a significant question of federal law and granted summary judgment to Darue. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the jurisdictional question alone.
View caseImran Iyer sued Insight Consulting in state court for legal malpractice arising from a patent prosecution. The complaint asserted only state-law negligence. Insight removed, arguing the case turned on federal patent standards. The federal court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim itself did not arise under federal law.
In the early 1990s, Vernon Minton developed a computer program and telecommunications network known as the Texas Computer Exchange Network, or TEXCEN, designed to facilitate securities trading. In March 1995, he leased the system to R. M. Stark & Co., a securities brokerage. A little over a year later, Minton applied for a patent for an interactive securities trading system based substantially on TEXCEN, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the patent in January 2000. Minton, represented by Jerry Gunn and the other petitioners, filed a patent infringement suit in Federal District Court against the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. NASD and NASDAQ moved for summary judgment on the ground that the patent was invalid under the on-sale bar because Minton had leased TEXCEN more than one year prior to filing his application. The District Court granted the motion and declared the patent invalid in 2002. Minton then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing for the first time that the lease fell within the experimental-use exception, but the District Court denied the motion. Minton appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed on the ground that the experimental-use argument had been waived. Minton then brought this legal malpractice action in Texas state court against Gunn and the other lawyers. The defendants defended on the ground that the lease to Stark was not for an experimental use, and the trial court granted summary judgment after finding less than a scintilla of proof on that point. On appeal, Minton argued for the first time that the Texas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the malpractice claim arose under federal patent law. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals of Texas rejected the jurisdictional argument and affirmed on the merits. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint shows a federal claim on its face. A defense or counterclaim raising federal law cannot create arising-under jurisdiction.
The rule requires courts to examine only the plaintiff's properly pleaded cause of action. If that cause of action is created by federal law or necessarily depends on a substantial federal issue, the case lies within federal question jurisdiction.
No. Jurisdiction cannot be created by artful drafting that recites a defendant's expected federal defense. The court looks solely to whether federal law creates the plaintiff's own cause of action.
…v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. , 486 U. S. 800, 808-809 (1988). For cases falling within the patent specific arising under jurisdiction of § 1338(a), however, Congress has not only provided for federal jurisdiction but also eliminated state jurisdiction, decreeing that “[n]o State court shall have jurisdiction over any…