Case Name: MEMORYLINK CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Jonathan P. Meyer, Hugh C. Dunlop, Thomas G. Berry, J. Ray Wood, and Terri S. Hughes, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-02
Citations: 419 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 2010-1533
Parties: MEMORYLINK CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Jonathan P. Meyer, Hugh C. Dunlop, Thomas G. Berry, J. Ray Wood, and Terri S. Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before RADER, Chief Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 991–992

Head Matter:
MEMORYLINK CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Jonathan P. Meyer, Hugh C. Dunlop, Thomas G. Berry, J. Ray Wood, and Terri S. Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 2010-1533.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
May 2, 2011.
Before RADER, Chief Judge.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
ORDER
Motorola, Inc. et al. (Motorola) move to transfer this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Memorylink Corp. opposes transfer. Motorola replies.
Based upon our review of the papers submitted, it appears that the district court's jurisdiction over this legal malpractice action arose in part under 28 U.S.C. § 1388 and thus our jurisdiction is proper. Although a claim for relief may be denied on non-patent grounds as it was here, to determine the district court's jurisdiction and our own jurisdiction we must look to what the plaintiff would be required to prove to prevail on the claim for relief. See Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., 596 F.3d 1355, 1361-62 (Fed.Cir.2010) (determining district court's jurisdiction based upon what the plaintiff would have to prove to prevail in a legal malpractice action).
Here, Memorylink's complaint sought to correct the inventorship of the "Secret Patent," which would have required Me-morylink to prove, inter alia, that certain individuals were and/or other individuals were not the actual inventors in order to prevail on its claim. Although patent ownership might not necessarily raise an issue of patent law, patent inventorship does. Shum v. Intel Corp., 633 F.3d 1067,1076 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.2010) (state law claims involving patent law issue of inventorship gave district court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338). We therefore deny the motion without prejudice to the parties continuing to address the jurisdictional issue to the merits panel.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion is denied without prejudice to the parties raising the jurisdictional issue in the briefs.
(2) Memorylink's opening brief is due within 40 days from the date of filing of this order.