Gunn v. Minton
|Gunn v. Minton|
|Argued January 26, 2013|
Decided February 20, 2013
|Full case name||Jerry W. Gunn, et al., Petitioners v. Vernon F. Minton|
|Citations||568 U.S. 251 (more)|
|Opinion announcement||Opinion announcement|
|Prior||Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant, 2006 WL 3542699 (Tex. Dist. Sept. 16, 2006); affirmed, Minton v. Gunn, 301 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App. 2009); reversed, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 936 (2012).|
|Subsequent||Supreme Court of Texas overturned, remanded to Texas state courts for further proceedings.|
|, which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over a case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents,” does not deprive the state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in a patent case.|
|Majority||Roberts, joined by unanimous|
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), is a US patent law case. The case dealt with the question of jurisdiction of patent law litigation in regard to attorney malpractice. In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that federal laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to cases involving patents does not preclude the ability of state courts to hear cases related to but not involving patents. The case was remanded to the Texas state courts for further proceedings.
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- "Jerry W. Gunn, et al., v. Vernon F. Minton - LII Supreme Court Bulletin - LII / Legal Information Institute". Retrieved August 1, 2014.
- "Gunn v. Minton will impact future patent malpractice cases - Lexology". Retrieved August 1, 2014.
- Text of Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)