Court Opinion

ID: 9492789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:50:38.12253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:29.799645
License: Public Domain

RADER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would resolve this jurisdictional issue according to the overriding and compelling logic of Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 747 F.2d 1422, 1431, 223 USPQ 1074, 1081 (Fed.Cir.1984) (en banc) (holding that jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1338 according to the terms of the complaint as originally filed). This court today instead follows Gronholz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 836 F.2d 515, 5 USPQ2d 1269 (Fed.Cir.1987). In my eyes, neither Atari nor Gronholz controls because each case is limited to its facts, and neither involves an involuntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). However, I find Atari more applicable than Gronholz for three following reasons. First, of course, Atari is an en banc pronouncement. Second, the Atari court deals far more thoroughly and convincingly with the statutory language and jurisdictional policies at stake such as forum shopping. Finally, this case is procedurally closer to Atari than Gronholz. In Gronholz, the party filing the suit itself requested dismissal of the patent claims, thus amending its own originally filed complaint. In this case, Nilssen did not undertake any action to amend its complaint. Instead the district court dismissed over Nilssen’s objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).*

 The majority correctly states that Mr. Nilssen did not formally object to the district court's dismissal of Nilssen's patent claims. However, at oral argument, Nilssen explained that he had argued against dismissing the patent claims but was unable to object without the fear that such an objection would negatively impact the district court's rulings on Nilssen’s other claims. Thus, withholding at length his formal objection, Nilssen had clearly opposed *786the dismissal. That fact is reflected by the district court’s use of Fed.RXiv.P. 41(b) to achieve the dismissal. That rule is titled “Involuntary Dismissal.”