Legal Document

535 U.S. 826 HOLMES GROUP, INC.v.VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. No. 01-408. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued March 19, 2002. Decided June 3, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT Petitioner filed a federal-court action, seeking, inter alia, declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe respondent's trade dress and an injunction restraining respondent from accusing it such infringement. Respondent's answer asserted compulsory patentinfringement counterclaim. The District ruled in petitioner's favor. Respondent appealed to Federal Circuit, which, notwithstanding challenge jurisdiction, vacated Court's remanded case. Held: Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over case which complaint does allege patent-law claim, but contains Pp. 829-834. (a) Circuit's is fixed with reference district court, 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(1), turns on whether action one "arising under" federal patent law, 1338(a). Because 1338(a) uses same operative language as 1331, confers general federal-question well-pleaded-complaint rule governing arises under 1331 also governs As adapted 1338(a), provides law determined by what appears plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 800, 809. no claim arising erred asserting this appeal. 829-830. (b) allow counterclaim serve basis for court's jurisdiction. To otherwise would contravene face-of-the-complaint principle set forth prior cases, see, e. g., Caterpillar Inc. Williams, 482 386, 392, longstanding policies furthered principle: It leave acceptance or rejection state forum master rather than plaintiff; radically expand class removable cases; undermine clarity ease administration doctrine. 830-832. (c) alternative argument, reading §§ 1295(a)(1) confer appellate whenever raised necessary effectuate Congress's goal promoting uniformity: This task determine further goal, statute's words must fairly be understood mean. impossible say 1338(a)'s means when read own, complaint-or-counterclaim referred 1295(a)(1). 832-834. 13 Fed. Appx. 961, remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, Rehnquist, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, JJ., joined, STEVENS, joined Parts I II-A. concurring part judgment, post, p. 834. GINSBURG, O'CONNOR, 839. James W. Dabney argued cause petitioner. With him brief were Paul Izzo, Timothy P. Gallogly, Arthur R. Miller, Marcia H. Sundeen, Carol M. Wilhelm. Peter Gowdey respondent. Christopher Murphy, Janine A. Carlan, Kenneth Starr, Daryl L. Joseffer.* JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 1 In case, we address Appeals has 2 * Respondent, Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., manufacturer patented fans heaters. late 1992, sued competitor, Duracraft claiming Duracraft's use "spiral grill design" infringed dress. Tenth found Duracraft, holding had protectable trade-dress rights design. See 58 F. 3d 1498 (1995) (Vornado I). 3 Nevertheless, November 26, 1999, lodged States International Trade Commission against petitioner, Holmes Group, sale heaters spiral design held unprotectable I. Several weeks later, petitioner Kansas, infringement promotional materials. alleging 4 granted sought. 93 Supp. 2d 1140 (Kan. 2000). court explained collateralestoppel effect precluded relitigating rejected contention intervening Midwest Industries, Karavan Trailers, 175 1356 (1999), disagreed reasoning I, constituted change warranted relitigation claim. stayed all proceedings related counterclaim, adding dismissed if entered favor affirmed 5 Circuit. Notwithstanding 961 (2001), consideration "change law" exception collateral estoppel applied light TrafFix Devices, Marketing Displays, 532 23 decided after resolved split involving Industries. We certiorari consider properly 534 1016 (2001). II 6 Congress vested exclusive "an appeal final decision ... was based, whole part, [28 ] 1338 ...." (emphasis added). Section turn, relevant "[t]he courts shall have original any civil Act relating patents Thus, law.1 7 statute conferring federalquestion gives "original actions Constitution, laws, treaties States." (Emphasis added.) said 808 (1988), "[l]inguistic consistency" requires us apply test 1331. 8 long governed "arises purposes 1331.2 See, Phillips Petroleum Co. Texaco 415 125, 127-128 (1974) (per curiam). "appropriately 1338(a)," "must necessarily statement his own bill declaration Christianson, S., at 809 (internal quotation marks omitted). "establis[h] either creates right relief depends resolution substantial question Ibid. Here, undisputed law. therefore 9 argues rule, understood, allows disagree. 10 Admittedly, our cases only required defense, can establish those generally exists "only presented face pleaded complaint." 392 (1987) Fair Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 22, 25 (1913), "cannot depend upon answer." Moreover, declined adopt proposals "the well consulted before determination [is] made `ar[ises] under' Franchise Tax Bd. Cal. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust Southern Cal., 463 1, 10-11, n. (1983) (citing American Law Institute, Study Division Jurisdiction Between State Courts 1312, pp. 188-194 (1969)). follows — defendant's answer, re Adams, 1187, 1188, (CA5 1987); FDIC Elefant, 790 661, 667 (CA7 1986); Takeda Northwestern National Life Ins. 765 815, 822 (CA9 1985); 14B Wright, E. Cooper, Practice Procedure 3722, 402-414 (3d ed. 1998). 11 Allowing underlying precedents. First, since plaintiff complaint," enables him, "by eschewing claims based heard court." supra, 398-399. proposed respondent, contrast, defendant remove brought thereby defeating choice forum, simply raising Second, power contrary "[d]ue regard rightful independence governments" addressing removal require. Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. Sheets, 313 100, 109 (1941) And finally, allowing responsive pleadings doctrine, serves "quick thumb" resolving jurisdictional conflicts. Bd., 11. 12 For these reasons, decline transform into "well-pleadedcomplaint-or-counterclaim rule" urged B argues, alternative, even should interpret phrase differently ascertaining view, effectuating "promoting uniformity law," Brief 21, raised.3 14 do think option available. Our here ensuring uniformity, difficult enough give meaning appeared jurisdiction-conferring itself. Cf. Economic Stabilization 1970, 211(b)(2), 85 Stat. 749 (providing Temporary Emergency appeals "in controversies title"). Even then some neologism might justify adverting purpose legislation, term familiar students invoking wellpleaded-complaint rule. Coastal Marketing, New England 604 179, 183 (CA2 1979) ("The `cases strong evidence intended borrow body decisional developed other grants `arising various regulatory statutes"). But present weaker that, itself term, refers 1338, where established patents" invokes, specifically, unprecedented feat interpretive necromancy thing (the rule) right, something quite different (respondent's complaint-orcounterclaim 1295(a)(1).4 15 16 Not fall within By limiting wellestablished include vacate remand instructions transfer 1631. 17 so ordered. Notes: David Long Patent, Trademark, Copyright Bar Association Columbia amicus curiae. LikeChristianson 814-815 call decide initially actual constructive amendment provide foundation pursuant 1441(a), part: "Except expressly provided Congress, may removed defendants, division embracing place pending." (1983). Echoing variant GINSBURG contends "giv[ing] effect" intention "to eliminate shopping advance "actually adjudicated."Post, 840 (opinion judgment). precisely argument viz., suggestion "fixed `by actually litigated.'" 813 (quoting O. T. 1987, 87-499, 31). like "is complaint, well-tried case." 814. Although Justice Stevens agrees correct interpretation he nevertheless quibbles "there well-reasoned precedent" supporting conclusion. Seepost, 835 There not. relied STEVENS Aerojet-General Machine Tool Works, Oerlikon-Buehrle Ltd., 895 736 (CA 1990), retain (or therein) defect identified. They mention statutory invokes. Nor another court. bearing interpreted 18 judgment. 19 correctly holds court," ante, 829. important note however, "fixed" until notice filed. Griggs Provident Consumer Discount 459 56, 58-59 (1982) curiam) filing event significance divests control aspects involved appeal"). 20 began antitrust added pending taken, been part" grant Conversely, count multicount voluntarily trial, seem equally clear taken appropriate regional 823-824 (1988) (Stevens, concurring). Any approach "would enable unscrupulous manipulate timing amendments Id., 824. extent endorsing result reason reliance agree it. 21 encompass alleged providing independent "neologism" involve necromancy," 833. there precedent 736, 742-743 1990) (en banc) Markey, unanimous court) (citing, Rengo Molins 657 535, 539 (CA3 1981); Dale Electronics, 488 382, 390 (CA1 1973); Pioche Mines Consol., Fidelity-Philadelphia 206 336, 336-337 1953); Lion Mfg. Chicago Flexible Shaft 106 930, 933 1939)).1 am persuaded limits amended pleading plaintiff. my each three identified "well-pleadedcomplaint" 831-832, points direction respect 22 interest preserving includes will conduct trial well. A who legitimate litigating circuit whose precedents support theory omit order avoid review defeated allowed forum. although doubt enabled counterclaimant occasional expand" number 832, recognize defined comprise trademark copyright are included 1338(a).2 instant litigation demonstrates, sounding areas intellectual property infrequently bound up counterclaims. potential direct specifically chose significant. 24 Third, maintaining simplicity rules served mandate Aerojet, Chief Judge Markey merely "compulsory" "frivolous" "insubstantial" sufficed jurisdiction; point noting assertion issue [the Circuit]." 2d, 738. text statute, distinguish between permissive, insubstantial, manipulative, very good make turn distinctions. Requiring assessment motive counterclaim's relative strength wastes judicial resources inviting "unhappy interactions merits." Kennedy 851 963, 968 1988). is, course, countervailing directing specialized created, promote development area already issues.3 811-812. Necessarily, therefore, circuits role play An conflict decisions useful identifying questions merit attention. broader antidote risk develop institutional bias.4 26 sum, concur join II-A opinion. dismisses cited inAerojet, en banc having "no bearing" because they parse Ante, 834, 4. surely "quibbl[e]" acknowledge them Aerojet conclusion satisfying requirement event, black magic could belied (TECA), 1970 (ESA), 749. Most departed traditional understanding TECA ESA issues, including defense. identical respecting 185-186 ("It candidly recognized according form `issue' places phrase, under,' construction differs associated statutes, ESA]"). agreement ultimate find unnecessary inappropriate slight Appeals. "exclusive district] C.] section ..., except copyrights, mask works, trademarks governed" provisions appeals. explicit contrast TECA, see 1,supra, claims, issues. 820-821, (STEVENS, concurring) Rep. 97-312, 41 (1981)) ("Cases sense `arise Contrast, 179 (2d Cir., [Temporary Act]" omitted)). Considerations convenience parties Congress' issues If, example, rests multiple grounds, relatively straightforward matter Easterbrook explains 963 1988), fixing ensures return subsequent (describing "a game ping-pong" directed grounds pleadings). Dreyfuss, Circuit: Case Specialized Courts, 64 N. Y. Rev. 25-30, 54 (1989) (evaluating criticism demonstrates greater pro-patent bias circuits) 27 whom O'Connor joins, reasons stated writing (1990), conclude "aris[es] adjudicated merits adjudication determinations id., 741-744 (distinguishing 800 Circuit; discussing "well-pleaded rule," observed unlike base i. e., discretely laws"). 29 now bears sole concerns allocation adjudicatory authority among At level, sought application 30-37 (1989). 30 dwells authority. 829-832. But, agree, left entirely untouched. attend, instead, unique context issue, endeavor least adjudications claims. 36. 31 adjudicated. reason,

Classification Label: 8