• Sep 18 2019
  • |
  • Category: CAFC Updates

 Inspired Development Group sued KidsEmbrace for breach of contract and other related state law claims in federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The parties entered into an Exclusive Patent Licensing Agreement, which granted KidsEmbrace an exclusive license to practice Inspired’s design patents to commercialize car seats in the shape of cartoon and comic book characters in exchange for certain royalties. The district court granted summary judgment in KidsEmbrace’s favor on certain claims and Inspired Development appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. After the Eleventh Circuit discovered that diversity jurisdiction did not exist, the district court concluded on remand that it retained jurisdiction over the suit based on federal question jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit transferred the case to this court to determine whether the parties’ claims arise under the patent laws pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). After conducting a detailed analysis of whether all four elements of the Supreme Court’s four-part test from Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) are satisfied to determine whether federal jurisdiction over the state law claim for unjust enrichment (or other claims and counterclaims) will lie, the CAFC concludes that no claims allege a cause of action created by federal patent law, and vacates and remands for dismissal of the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.

View Decision