Gunn v. Minton: Post Argument Discussion

 

Jan 16 | Room 603
4:00pm-5:30pm
REGISTRATION (including CLE registration)

Live Webcast


Participants

  • Jane Webre – Scott Douglass & McConnico, LLP, Counsel for Petitioners
  • Greg Carr - Carr IP, Counsel for Respondent
  • Theodore Sheills - Sheills Law Firm, PC, Counsel for Respondent
  • Rory Ryan – Baylor Law School, Counsel for amicus curiae Law Professors, in support of Petitioners
  • Jonas Anderson – American University Washington College of Law, Moderator

Background on Gunn v. Minton

As part of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property’s ongoing Supreme Court series, counsel for parties and amici will discuss intellectual property cases on the afternoon of oral argument, addressing the reaction of the Court at oral argument.  The discussion is open to the public and available as a live and on-demand webcast.

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, the Court will hear argument in Gunn v. Minton, which concerns the jurisdiction of federal and state courts over legal malpractice claims that involve an attorney’s handling of a patent law matter.  Specifically, the case presents the question of whether the Federal Circuit departed from the standard articulated in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005 ), for “arising under” jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, when it held that state law legal malpractice claims against trial lawyers for their handling of underlying patent matters come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts?