28 U.S.C. § 1338(A)

47 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Peter Starr Prod. Co. v. Twin Cont'l Films, Inc.
  783 F.2d 1440· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 76×
  The court held that a claim alleging the execution of a contract in the United States that purports to grant an unauthorized license for a copyrighted work falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
• Bandag, Inc. v. AL Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc.
  750 F.2d 903· Fed. Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 67×
  The court held that it has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent claims, even if trademark claims are also present. It affirmed the finding of trademark infringement based on a telephone directory advertisement but vacated the damages and attorneys' fees award, rem
• Blisscraft OF Hollywood v. United Plastics Co.
  294 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-28 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the plaintiff's design patent was invalid for lack of invention and ornamentation, and that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's common law trademark 'Poly Pitcher' and engaged in unfair competition by simulating the plaintiff's label.
• AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Reichhold Chems., Inc.
  755 F.2d 1559· Fed. Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 38×
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a patent infringement suit if the complaint, on its face, states a claim arising under the patent laws, even if resolution of a contract dispute is necessary.
• The A. H. Emery Co. v. Marcan Prods. Corp.
  389 F.2d 11· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in the trade secret findings and no abuse of discretion regarding the unclean hands defense or federal jurisdiction.
• Thiokol Chem. Corp. v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  448 F.2d 1328· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-07 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the first suit was properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, but the second suit could proceed under certain conditions. The court also held that an injunction staying state proceedings was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
• Coal. TO Preserve THE Integrity OF Am. Trademarks v. United States
  790 F.2d 903· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Customs Service regulations permitting importation of grey-market goods were invalid as contrary to Section 526 of the Tariff Act of 1930, but that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
• Vivitar Corp. v. The United States
  761 F.2d 1552· Fed. Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 29×
  The Court of International Trade's decision upholding the Customs regulation is affirmed, as Customs can validly exclude goods for its own administrative purposes, even if not coextensive with the full reach of the statute between private parties.
• Royal Lace Paper Works, Inc. v. Pest-Guard Prods., Inc.
  240 F.2d 814· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not create an independent ground for federal jurisdiction over claims of unfair competition involving unregistered trademarks, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of one defendant.
• Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc.
  405 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-03 ·cited 26×
  When a state court suit alleges breach of an agreement whose only possible breach would constitute patent infringement, the suit arises under the patent laws and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, regardless of how the complaint is labeled. A state cou
• The Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Honorable R. Dorsey Watkins
  326 F.2d 926· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate to compel the district court to join the United States as a party, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or transfer the case, as the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Senta Maria Runge v. LEE
  441 F.2d 579· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the jury's verdicts on copyright infringement and unfair competition were supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court's judgments and awards were proper.
• Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Adkins
  330 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of a related state court action, finding the order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Loew's Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Park-In Theatres, Inc.
  174 F.2d 547· 1st Cir.· 1949-04-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the patent claims were invalid for lack of invention, reversing the lower court's judgment of validity and infringement. The court also declined to definitively rule on its appellate jurisdiction over the non-federal royalty claim.
• Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co. & All Purpose Spreader Co.
  239 F.2d 774· 6th Cir.· 1957-01-11 ·cited 22×
  Venue is proper in the district where a corporation is licensed to do business, and the first-filed action is determined by the filing date, not service date.
• Topolos v. Caldewey
  698 F.2d 991· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 18×
  A claim arises under the Copyright Act for federal jurisdiction purposes if it alleges infringement and requires resolution of copyright ownership, even if that requires incidental contract interpretation.
• Kysor Indus. Corp. v. PET
  459 F.2d 1010· 6th Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an action to enforce a patent settlement agreement, even with a federal patent-antitrust defense, is not exclusively within federal jurisdiction and must be remanded to state court.
• R. G. Barry Corp. v. Mushroom Makers
  612 F.2d 651· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-11 ·cited 14×
  Removal of a state law dilution claim to federal court is improper if the complaint does not allege a federal question, and the removing party is a citizen of the forum state.
• Flagship Real Est. Corp. v. Flagship Banks, Inc.
  374 So. 2d 1020· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The state circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in disputes involving federally registered trademarks, and therefore erred in dismissing the cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Arvin Indus., Inc. v. Berns AIR King Corp.
  510 F.2d 1070· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 14×
  A patent licensor's suit alleging infringement based on the licensee's refusal to pay royalties arises under state contract law, not federal patent law, and thus federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) is improper.
• Point Conversions, LLC v. 1D19-4290
  46 Fla. L. Weekly D489· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-05-19 ·cited 10×
  Point Conversions, LLC appealed the dismissal of its lawsuits against hotel franchisees, which were filed in state court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the lawsuits were fundamentally about patent infringement and thus fell under the exclusive jurisdict
• Wang Labs., Inc. v. Applied Computer Scis., Inc.
  926 F.2d 92· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 8×
  The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from district court judgments where the underlying jurisdiction was based in whole or in part on patent law, even if the appeal concerns enforcement of a settlement agreement or a breach of contract claim consolidated wi
• Koratron Co., Inc. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
  418 F.2d 1314· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff's complaint, by omitting patent infringement claims and pleading state law torts, can avoid the specific venue provisions for patent infringement actions, even if patent issues are implicated.
• Republic Pictures Corp. v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles
  197 F.2d 767· 9th Cir.· 1952-06-11 ·cited 8×
  A federal court does not have jurisdiction to foreclose a mortgage on a copyright, as such an action does not arise under an Act of Congress relating to copyrights.
• Ventrassist Pty Ltd. v. Heartware, Inc.
  377 F. Supp. 2d 1278· S.D. Fla.· 2005-07-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the defendant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and denying the motion to stay discovery.
• Royal v. Leading Edge Prods., Inc.
  833 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 6×
  A dispute over royalty payments for a copyrighted work does not "arise under" federal copyright law for jurisdictional purposes if it is fundamentally a breach of contract claim.
• Consol. World Housewares, Inc. v. Finkle
  831 F.2d 261· Fed. Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the district court's decision did not arise under the patent laws, and therefore transferred the appeal to the Seventh Circuit.
• Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen
  817 F.2d 72· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-08 ·cited 6×
  A district court has jurisdiction over a copyright infringement claim even if an oral agreement between the parties is implicated, as the claim arises under federal law if it seeks a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act.
• Bailey v. Logan Square Typographers, Inc.
  441 F.2d 47· 7th Cir.· 1971-04-06 ·cited 6×
  A state law claim for misappropriation of an unpublished compilation of alphabet designs, even if a federal defense exists for copying published individual letters, does not arise under federal law for removal purposes.
• Alco Standard Corp. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  808 F.2d 1490· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the patent claims were infringed and not invalid, and that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
• Ramos v. Biomet, Inc.
  828 F. Supp. 1570· S.D. Fla.· 1993-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, awarding significant damages.
• Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. The Lubrizol Corp.
  935 F.2d 1263· Fed. Cir.· 1991-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court's subject matter jurisdiction for patent infringement is established by a well-pleaded complaint, even if the patent's validity or issuance date is later challenged.
• P & D Int'l v. Halsey Publ'g Co.
  672 F. Supp. 1429· S.D. Fla.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim, that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply, and that an indispensable party is not required. The court also found that summary judgment on the 'work for hire' defense was n
• Teleties, LLC v. Defendants #1-18 as Identified in Schedule "A"
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-11
  The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and a permanent injunction against defaulting defendants for patent infringement.
• Sumfinidade Unipessoal LDA v. Yachtlife Techs. Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-24
  The court recommended granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding sufficient basis for copyright infringement liability and injunctive relief, but requiring further inquiry into damages.
• Markos v. The Big & Wild Outdoors LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-24
  The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part, finding sufficient allegations for copyright infringement and removal of copyright management information, and awarding statutory damages and injunctive relief.
• Point Conversions, LLC v. 1D19-4290
  46 Fla. L. Weekly D489· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-05-19
  Point Conversions, LLC appealed the dismissal of its lawsuits against hotel franchisees. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims necessarily involved resolving complex patent law issues exclusi
• Point Conversions, LLC v. 1D19-4290
  46 Fla. L. Weekly D489· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-05-19
  Point Conversions, LLC appealed the dismissal of its lawsuits against hotel franchisees, which were filed in state court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the lawsuits necessarily involved exclusive federal patent law issues, thus divesting state courts of
• Point Conversions, LLC v. 1D19-4290
  46 Fla. L. Weekly D489· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-05-19
  Point Conversions, LLC appealed the dismissal of its lawsuits against hotel franchisees, which were filed in state court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the cases "arise under" federal patent law and thus fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal
• Point Conversions, LLC v. 1D19-4290
  46 Fla. L. Weekly D489· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-05-19
  Point Conversions, LLC appealed the dismissal of its lawsuits against hotel franchisees, which were filed in state court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the lawsuits necessarily involved exclusive federal patent law issues, thus divesting state courts of
• Ragner Tech. Corp. v. Berardi
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-16
  A federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law fraud and breach of contract claims, even if patent law issues are implicated in the damages calculation, if those issues are not necessarily raised, disputed, substantial, and resolvable without disrupting the fede
• Harris O. Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers
  971 F.2d 926· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-06
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to issue a contempt order in aid of determining its own subject matter jurisdiction, the record was insufficient to determine the underlying jurisdictional question, and Abady was denied due process in the contempt pro
• Racing Strollers, Inc. v. TRI Indus., Inc.
  878 F.2d 1418· Fed. Cir.· 1989-06-26
  The court overruled its prior precedent in In re Campbell, holding that an application for a design patent filed as a division of an earlier filed utility patent application is entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.
• Imperial Appliance Corp. v. Hamilton Mfg. Co.
  430 F.2d 185· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-07
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement suit even if the plaintiff's title to the patent is disputed, provided the dispute hinges on patent law rather than state contract law.
• Universal Mfg. Co. & Potomac Indus., Inc. v. Honorable Oren R. Lewis
  381 F.2d 819· 4th Cir.· 1967-07-20
  The court held that mandamus would not issue because the petitioner, Universal, had moved for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, and could not complain when the court granted dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.