Opinion ID: 178295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juri.sdiction,

Text: Portney moves to transfer the petition back to the Ninth Circuit contending that it is the proper forum for resolution. He argues that his complaint as amended raises only state law breach of contract and fraud issues and neither includes a patent claim nor necessarily turns on a substantial question of patent law. ClBA opposes transfer, again arguing that this court has proper jurisdiction because of the need to resolve whether its devices fall within the scope of Portney’s patents. We agree with CIBA that this court has jurisdiction over this petition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1), this court has exclusive jurisdiction over a certified petition for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree . . . in any case over which the court would have jurisdiction of an PORTNEY V. CIBA VISlON 4 appeal under [28 U.S.C. § 1295]. Section 1295(a)(1) provides that this court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision of a district court “if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of title 28. Section 1338, in turn, gives district courts original jurisdiction of “any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). In Christianson, u. Colt Industries Operatin,g Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988), the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the term arising under in the context of section 1338. The court stated that § 1338 jurisdiction extends only to those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either (1) that federal patent law creates the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of those well-pleaded claims. Id. at 809. The Court in Christian.son further held that the law of the case doctrine applies when a court of appeals transfers a case based on its determination that another court of appeals has jurisdiction, The Court explained that as a rule[,] courts should be loathe [to revisit decisions of a coordinate court] in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”’ Id. at 817 . Under this exacting standard, Portney cannot meet his burden of demonstrating that this court should retransfer. Although it is clear that Portney’s complaint does not raise a patent claim, CIBA’s argument that the second prong of the Christianson test, i.e., that at least one claim for relief necessarily turns on a substantial question of patent law, is sound. 5 PORTNEY V. CIBA VISION As CIBA points out, resolution of a proper accounting and damages will necessarily depend on Portney demonstrating that certain ClBA products require a higher royalty rate than has been paid because the products fall within the claims of the patent. ln U.S. Valves, In,c. u. Dray, 212 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000), we retained jurisdiction over a complaint seeking injunctive relief against a patentee accused of breaching its grant of an exclusive right to sell and manufacturer products under the patent. We explained that jurisdiction in this court was proper because to demonstrate the right to injunctive relief, the plaintiff would need to establish that the defendants products infringed, i.e., fell within the scope of the patents. Id. at 368. The analysis in U.S. l/alves applies with similar force here.