A judge of this court denied the motion as well as Motorola s subsequent motion for reconsideration. Nilssen responds that the jurisdictional issue must be resolved on the basis of the situation at the outset of the suit. We agree with Motorola that we lack jurisdiction over the present appeal and that transfer to the Seventh Circuit is necessary. There is no dispute that Nilssen s complaint originally contained a well-pleaded claim for patent infringement and that the court s jurisdiction at that point was based in part on 28 U.S.C. 1338. See Christianson v. Colt Indus.
Jurisdiction normally attaches at the time of filing based on pleadings.
Had the patent claims remained in the case, we surely would have had jurisdiction to review the district court s decision on both the patent and the state law claims. At that point, the court s jurisdiction was based solely on its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. Nilssen s argument that the jurisdictional issue must always be resolved on the basis of the situation at the outset of the suit is contrary to our holding in Gronholz . We also disagree with Nilssen that the fact that his patent claims were involuntarily dismissed sufficiently distinguishes this case from Gronholz . Although we agree with Nilssen that an involuntary dismissal of a claim is technically not an amendment, that distinction is not controlling.