jurisdiction we respectfully ask that this court reports the twelve court's findings dismissing this case during the course of my argument i really want to touch on three main points the first point is that the decision in this case is controlled by or jurisdiction is limited to a very narrow range of cases and it is the exception not the rule and in fact the second prong of the test the federalism on the test is designed to limit the number of state court with the supreme court cases specifically with this case our position is that the mail back this case does not override under federal law for two reasons one there is no substantial federal interest and having this matter heard in federal court and we say that for a number of reasons but most significantly i believe in a reason that separates this case from the premier networks case is that of a black a candor with the u s at the office nobody can enforce that pat is there any legal authority the leases it's the same legal authority of restricted caught it in any other case out it's not a liberal stop yes we're next claiming that in this case there can't be an argument that the result would have come out differently based on the facts of the case or based on the evidence but what we are claiming is that you think that bat issue has been decide that that is not an endorser paul patton that's part of the public domain anybody can use that idea there's nothing that prevents someone from using it and so that this case is not going to affect any actual pat not i don't know if there's a case address that specifically but i can tell you that at the time and i think the important question was to get step back and look at what is the significant issue in here in the legal malpractise case at the time it's file at the time the legal malpracti another number of other malpractise cases you know if you have a neurosurgeon you would have an expert testifying to the standards and would be able to explain the factual circumstances and render his opinion as to what the result would have been based on the facts in this case i think we could also ask the question of picture additional notice of the decision in the eyes for a ruling and of course the experts would certainly argue about the significance of that ruling with respect to the mill practice claims  and the difference of the statement we have to engage in construction versus application here and there my argument would be they're really not going to have to do either in the in the underlying case infringement was admitted it was admitted there was damages so i think i just don't see how that would be what we're talking about for the most part the affirmative defenses deal with issues of disclosure and candor in the u s patent office some of the issues that additionally this case whatever is decided no matter who wins is not going to have any impact on the natural patent it will have no impact and patent law it's certainly an important of the properties but it's not going to be controlling in any other case additionally with the supreme court found significant in those cases finding federal jurisdiction is that it would concern a pure issue a federal law we don't have that in this case we had it back down situation specific issue and that's what the court actual enforceable pat and what happened in premier is that the patent holder brought suit in federal court for patent infringement and was even better by the legal malpractise action in state court saying the recently lost in federal court was because his attorney failed to present specific and certain scientific evidence and that would have changed the result not in our case we don't have natural patent we have been frenchmen in that we don't have the need we're not trying to present certain scientific evidence and we know from the federal circuit that the patents on the forcible additionally act my second point would be is i think premier networks got off on the wrong foot by looking at the wrong case and i say that respectfully and a lot of it could have been in the way the case was presented because kremer when we get to the next problem and i think it's important to realize that the most important part of the test is the federalism part of the test and the court said that there's a veto that even if it's a factual issue of federal law a case can't be moved into federal court if it would disrupt the division of state in federal judicial responsibilities and here it's well established that the state's interest is compelling and just taking a step back to claim their networks who are networks did not look at the federalism issue and the reason the premier networks court to look at the federalism issue is the parties focus their attention i christianson it which federal jurisdiction was admitted and was nat disputed by the parties if you look at the federalism issue the state has a compelling interest in regulating attorneys in the practice of law the supreme court of illinois is uniquely responsible for regulating attorney conduct the state has a significant interest in making sure th reaped from accidental practice have a remedy there is no comparable federal interest and we said it's the same case where the court pointed out that there's traditionally issues of attorney malpractise have been within the state and and the facts in it and even points out that it's going to be narrow it's going to be limited it's going to be extremely special case that makes its way in a federal court and play well con iraq seizing property of grable selling in a tax sale now they give him notice by way of certified mail and the only issue in gra concerned whether or not the notice complied with federal law and here's what the graver court found that i think is important for the reasons why they found that this case arise under federal law first of all the court said that the need to apply federal law on its own is insufficient that's not going to do it but they said it says raise substantial issues the federal law if they are all in here was because the only contested issue when should the meaning of a federal statute not simply the need to apply it but the meaning of it and there the only question was whether in that certified mail complied with the statute or service said to be by by no set of you by personal service additionally they found a substantial federal interest for the federal government to vindicated so an agency's administrative actions in federal court and they saw the state court proceeding as a collateral attack on the agency's own action they also you needed to provide clear notice so and then they said even after considering all of these factors we have to step back because there would be a veto if this would disrupt the division between state and out that it would be having a microscopic effect and that's the that's the term they used that would be the rare title action that would be moved into federal court because it raises the stance of federal issue  merrell dow doesn't look at the state's interest i'm sorry immuno set and a measurement don't look at the state's interest just no discussion of the state's interest in hearing this cases there's no discussion of the disruption affect the number of cases that would moved from a state court in a federal court and here it's clear that a large number of cases it would be moved from state court to federal court because if you've seen after the premier networks decision there's been a number of cases that have come out before two thousand and seven the lead law was clearly established and milk practice cases can be heard in state court after the seventh circuit i'm sorry the federal circuit came out with its cases in two thousand and seven we saw a lot of other district court doubt have to make sure i was ok i think we i know we said a lot of cases in their case this case there's a lot of cases that come up the other way we said of the three district court cases from two thousand and ten that raised the point and this is generally r and roe technical but in those cases where a pattern never issued they departed from the federal circuit and said the federal circuit felt to apply the supreme court test no basis to find substantial federal issue because a pen is expired because any decision in this case will not affect patent rights any question regarding the patent or federal issues are purely hypothetical court safad one thing the one good is whether there's a federal cause of action for for the for the client here there is no federal cause of action for legal malpractise even in a patent matter that congress wanted to it could have been made a part of the thirteen thirty eight jurisdiction it did not and even the all the court you know we said the same court which said is the importance of the state issues with respect to the practice the benefits of southwest case and the number of cases of come out have found it certainly federalist the courts of found that the federal circuit has departed from what the supreme court as indicated in the supreme court cases and then looking at the federalism part of this case there is no compelling federal interest in the case where there's no there is no cure issue of law and moving this case to federal court moves a substantial number of cases with it into federal phase and offense and upsets the principle of federalism that this is you know rob this is a case you know where there's two very different results in two different cases if we're talking about uniformity patent laws and it's hard to see how we got there between the that can't be reconciled and it's clear that those cases governors even the federal circuit purports to give lip service to those cases and we cited mitten versus gun reflect the call or your sports where all those cases are patent cases roe to be applied the federal circuit precedent and followed that a set of the federal circuit this is a case that was litigated timely filed the day after the series of tolling agreements and it well after attack is asking this court to ignore the clear language of section thirteen thirty eight to ignore the clear language of questions and which is the only supreme court authority cited it deals with jurisdiction over patent claims into overrule this court's decision i networks which is equally clear and on point the trial court promptly dismissed the fall of this authority in dismissing a complex claim and it should be affirmed maybe tech argues but three other supreme court cases me which is the fifth circuit case on which mega tech realize it recognizes that patents are different if they can't get it in sync in the same case the fifth circuit said this is a trademark case and so we're not going to find the disks was a federal jurisdiction but if it had been a p involves eleven different pattens separate issue in that case and only one of those patents is at issue in this case that's the four zero nine plans and it didn't involve the question of the invalidity defense which counsel did not discuss earlier the invalidity defense  really of the distinction excuse me for civility versus inability is there a big distinction there is a big distinction your honor an unforced ability deals with whether or not there's been misconduct before the patent on the legally of a different definition but as far as the cases are concerned they sufficient to find that the pattern was unfortunately did not find that and in fact it found that it was the pattern across eleven hands that caused the court to conclude is that there was an ethical conduct and that is a different that is a distinction that's important secondly it doesn't matter whether you're and state courts have found is that the majority line authority is that where you have an underlying malpractise case a test case that depends on resolving had an issues that that case represented presents a substantial issue a federal patent law that means that the federal court supreme court has said there should be no jurisdiction i point out your own is that twice now the supreme court has had a chance to review these review these decisions and in both decisions one came from the california state course court which is a landmark and one came from the this and say hold on a second you you are out of control federal circuit and they didn't do so and they didn't do so because patents are different hands are an exclusive area that congress has expressed a strong strong intention that there be uniformity  there be one federal court that will decide these issues a decision in a male practice case regarding any pattern is unlikely to affect that patent at a later date it's a it's a case that looks at a hypothetical hypothetical case in a case and the courts have found that that's sufficient to warrant federal jurisdiction but in any case whether the path is lance or not the decision made in a state court case with as a state court the jurisdiction over a case that has an underlying substantial issue a federal panel will have an effect beyond that case it will affect the conduct it where the state courts would continue to have jurisdiction even though the representation involved patent issues i'll give you an example suppose you have an inventor in a patent mine in the underlying case the panties and he wins and he gets a to briefly address an issue that makes tech raises in its reply brief that had not raised before and that is the what they say is a strong state interest in regulating the conduct of attorneys in illinois around the certainly true that the states have such an interest but it's not correct that that interest is affected here this is not a case about whether or not the states would have authority to regulate attorney contact and just when i see this case about whether or not a claim by a former former client should be brought in state court or federal they have to show not only that the advice was wrong but if they had followed different advice that they would have won and it's because of that if that makes this a federal case rather than a s court cases and said those are the ones that we have to follow not the federal circuit because a federal circuit is not complying the supreme court dictates there is no real reason to differentiate and there's no basis to disregard thousand five this coverage was going on in both cases at the same time and the trial in oz run was only six months after the magna tech decision i also want to point out to this court an cases that go both ways we said to a lot of cases since air measurement came up there's been a plethora of cases in florida state courts dealing with this issue and a lot of those have come out after premier networks before premier networks really there was new tack and the federal circuit but if you look at the cases that have come out recently rough technical generally arc from the district court in missouri those cases follow the supreme court precedent those cases look at this