The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robson, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendants move this court to dismiss this action for lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter. For the reasons set
forth below, this court is of the opinion the motion should be
The plaintiff complains that certain of the patents involved
have expired or are invalid, or cannot be asserted against its
products. The plaintiff further complains that the defendants
were aware of these facts at the time of contracting, but they
failed to so advise the plaintiff. The plaintiff asks this court
to declare the contract between the parties null and void, and
further, to declare certain of the underlying patents either
invalid or inapplicable to the plaintiff's products. It is the
plaintiff's contention that this case arises under the federal
patent laws, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). This court does not agree.
The plaintiff's allegations essentially raise issues concerning
the rights and legal relations of the parties under their
contract, as well as possible questions of failure of
consideration and fraudulent inducement. These are matters of
contract law and should properly be resolved in the state courts.
E.g., Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 661, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 23
L.Ed.2d 610 (1969); Koratron Company v. Deering Milliken, Inc.,
418 F.2d 1314, 1317 (9th Cir. 1969). A case does not arise under
the patent laws for purposes of federal jurisdiction merely
because in the course of interpreting a contract, questions of
patent law may be involved. Lang v. Patent Tile Company,
216 F.2d 254, 255 (5th Cir. 1954). "Where diversity of citizenship is
lacking, the fact that questions and issues are raised in
connection with a patent is not sufficient to invoke the
jurisdiction of this court." Eckert v. Braun, 62 F. Supp. 264
(E.D.Wis. 1945), aff'd 155 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1946).
The defendants' motion to amend their motion to dismiss by
including res judicata as a ground for dismissal is denied as
It is therefore ordered that the cause be, and it is hereby
dismissed without costs.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...