Footnotes (148)



Deciding Who Decides Intellectual Property Appeals

C. Scott Hemphill

New York University School of Law

February 17, 2010

Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 10-236

In Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., the Supreme Court narrowed the Federal Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction over patent cases. The Court decided that if an issue of patent law appears only in a defendant’s counterclaim, rather than the plaintiff’s complaint, the appeal must be routed instead to a regional circuit. The ruling raised fears of forum shopping in patent cases and patent law conflicts among the regional circuits.

This Article appraises Holmes Group as a decision about federal jurisdiction, not patent policy. The proposition for which Holmes Group is known – that a counterclaim does not provide a basis for a district court’s original jurisdiction – was not well presented, because a claim in the complaint already satisfied the relevant jurisdictional provision. Far more important, however, the Court neglected to explicate a statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1295, that determines the appellate forum for intellectual property cases. Specifically, the Court overlooked the statute’s “except” clause, which routes some but not all intellectual property appeals to the Federal Circuit. That neglect, abetted by the parties, led the Court to reach the wrong result.

The except clause, properly construed, poses an unrecognized obstacle to legislative efforts to expand Federal Circuit jurisdiction. Moreover, the provision requires Federal Circuit appeals for disputes about proposed new forms of intellectual property, including fashion, furniture, and other forms of original design. The case offers a cautionary tale about Supreme Court review of cases that mix specialized issues with matters of more general and perhaps greater concern to the Court.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 34

Keywords: appeals, fashion, Federal Circuit, forum shopping, Holmes Group, intellectual property, jurisdiction, patent, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: February 20, 2010 ; Last revised: April 13, 2010

Suggested Citation

Hemphill, C. Scott, Deciding Who Decides Intellectual Property Appeals (February 17, 2010). Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 10-236. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1554591

Contact Information

C. Scott Hemphill (Contact Author)
New York University School of Law ( email )
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,078
Downloads: 158
Download Rank: 127,599
Footnotes:  148
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.344 seconds