Gunn V. Minton Case Summary

Case: Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 – Supreme Court (2013)
This is a federal court case that takes place in the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a civil case, brought to the Texas State Court, appealed by the plaintiff from the trial court decision. This case was argued on January 16, 2013 and resolved on January 20, 2013.
Issue:
Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction of an attorney malpractice lawsuit (alleging the attorney did not represent plaintiff correctly) when the original case pertains to a patent infringement in which patent law has federal jurisdiction?
Facts of Case:
In the 1990’s, Vernon Minton developed a computer software program called Texas Computer Exchange Network, or TEXCEN, that allowed for financial traders

Procedure:
Gunn v. Minton is a legal malpractice case. The original case was based on a patent infringement. The patent infringement case was heard in Federal District Court where a summary judgment against Minton was ordered due to the violation of the “on sale bar” provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Later the case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals where the Federal District Court decision was affirmed.
The legal malpractice case was first heard in the Texas State Court where Minton lost the suit. It was later appealed to the Texas State Court of Appeals; where the question of federal jurisdiction over the malpractice suit arose due to the patent issue. Minton lost the appeal.
Then the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Texas State Court of Appeals decision, stating that Minton’s malpractice claim involved a substantial federal issue.
The United States Supreme Court accepted the case in

When the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Texas Court of Appeals decision in Minton’s malpractice claim, they decided the case belonged in Federal Court because it had a substantial federal issue. The Supreme Court ruled that the state’s responsibility of overseeing professional standards (i.e. legal malpractice) was more significant in this case than the federal patent law.

Rationale of the Court:
In 2003, Minton, displeased with the verdict from the District Court regarding the patent infringement, sues his attorneys, including head attorney Jerry W. Gunn et al, in the Texas State Court for committing legal malpractice for failing to raise the experimental use defense in a timely manner. Gunn then filed for summary judgment arguing no evidence due to the attorney’s lack of knowledge of the earlier sale being used for experimental purposes to be applicable. The Texas State Court settled the summary judgment to be in favor of Gunn.
In 2011, Minton appeals to the Texas State Court of Appeals. Minton argued his legal malpractice suit was based on patent law and that the state court did not use “subject matter jurisdiction.” Furthermore, Minton asked the Texas State Court of Appeals to dismiss the patent infringement case in order to sue for the second time.
The Texas State Court of Appeals rejected Minton’s