DOC PREVIEW
UI LAW 8006 - Gunn v. Minton

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Case BriefCiv Pro Unit B2 (federal question jurisdiction)1/17/2015Identity of CaseGunn v. Minton 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013)Page 108 of the casebook. Summary of Facts/procedural historyMinton is suing is former atty for legal malpractice. Former legal issue/timeline:1. Minton develops software, leases it to TEXCEN2. Later patents it (more than a year)3. Patent in hand, sues two other companies for violation. This is in federal court (all patent law is). They object based on the sale bar, if an item purported to be patented was on sale a year or more before the thing was patented, it cannot be patented. 4. On appeal, Minton(‘s attorney) argues for the first time that the lease of patent to TEXCEN was for experimental purposes, and therefore an exception to the sale bar. 5. Minton loses, prepares for his suit against his attorneyThis legal issue: 1. Minton loses at TC. On appeal, attempts to raise federal question issue2. In order to win his malpractice case, he has to show that if an “experimental use” defense was raised initially in response to the “sale bar” defense, the outcome most likely would’ve been different (along with some other malpractice issues). 3. The trial w/in a trial arises under federal law (patent law). Statement of the IssueBecause the trial within a trial arises under federal law, does this case raise federal questions? HoldingBecause in this case, the federal issue is not substantial (see explanation below), it does not qualify for federal question jurisdiction. ReasoningFederal question jurisdiction when the claim itself does not arise under federal law but turns on an important federal question requires the following 4 elements. 1. A federal issues is necessarily raised2. Actually disputed3. Substantial 4. Capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal state balance approved by congress.Minton meets the first 2, but fails on “substantial.” It is substantial that it affects his outcome, but substantial actually means that it affects federal law or other cases, that it could be precedent setting or something like that. Minton does not meet that level.


View Full Document
Download Gunn v. Minton
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Gunn v. Minton and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Gunn v. Minton 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?