A quick update for those interested in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit FRAND appeal:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gunn v. Minton, where the Court determined that a plaintiff’s patent litigation-related state law malpractice claim did not “arise under” the federal patent laws and did not create federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (the provision that provides for federal jurisdiction of patent cases). Earlier this week, Motorola Mobility filed a Submission of Supplemental Authority with the Federal Circuit, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision bolsters Motorola’s argument that Apple’s FRAND-related appeal should be dismissed or transferred to the Seventh Circuit. Motorola asserts that just as in Gunn — where the Supreme Court found that the presence of some insubstantial patent-related issues were insufficient to create federal jurisdiction — Apple’s claims here “do not require the resolution of any necessary or substantial patent issues.” (emphasis in original)
Apple submitted a brief response to Motorola’s submission regarding the applicability of Gunn, where Apple argues that Gunn is distinguishable from the facts of the Apple-Motorola case. According to Apple, the Supreme Court’s decision “has no bearing” on Federal Circuit jurisdiction here, because Apple’s declaratory judgment claims were created by federal patent law (whereas in Gunn, the legal malpractice claims were created by state law). Motorola appears to dispute Apple’s contention that Apple’s DJ claims were actually created by the patent laws, so this is an issue that the Federal Circuit is going to have to sort out.