STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE J. ROGERS PADGETT, CIRCUIT JUDGE, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Department of Transportation petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent a state circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over a conversion and taking-of-property suit based on alleged patent infringement. The court held that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and therefore the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
The state circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the determination of either count of Jacobs' suit would require deciding whether the Department infringed the patent, and exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement cases lies in federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The motion to dismiss should have been granted.
[1] Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement suits.
[2] State courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over cases that require a determination of patent infringement.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Congress has provided that the exclusive jurisdiction of cases arising under patent laws is in the federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). While state courts may have jurisdiction to resolve some rights incident to the patent laws, state courts lack jurisdiction over patent infringement suits.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement cases, even though state courts may handle some patent-related matters.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacobs Wind Electric Company, Inc., and Paul R. Jacobs filed suit against the Department of Transportation in Florida state circuit court alleging con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida, Department of Transportation (Department) petitions for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit the circuit court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction in this cause. The Department contends that under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) state courts do not have jurisdiction over this case, the determination of which depends upon whether there was a patent infringement. We agree and grant the petition.
Jacobs Wind Electric Company, Inc., and Paul R. Jacobs (Jacobs) brought suit against the Department in the circuit court with claims of conversion and a taking of property without compensation. The claims are based upon allegations that the Department had infringed a patent held by Jacobs.
The Department filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of Jacobs’ complaint. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and this petition was filed.
Congress has provided that the exclusive jurisdiction of cases arising under patent laws is in the federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). While state courts may have jurisdiction to resolve some rights incident to the patent laws, state courts lack jurisdiction over patent infringement suits. Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc., 405 So. 2d 487 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Since, as indicated above, a determination of either count of Jacobs’ suit would require the circuit court to decide whether the Department has infringed Jacobs’ patent rights, the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction of this case. Id. Accordingly, the Department’s motion to dismiss should have been granted.
Jacobs argues that they have already filed suit in federal court against the Department alleging infringement of the patent and that that case was dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Jacobs Wind Electric Company, Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 919 F. 2d 726 (Fed.Cir.1990). They argue that the federal court of appeals in its opinion in that case authorized the filing of this state court action. While we are sympathetic to Jacobs’ position, we cannot agree. We distinguish the basis for the dicta contained in the federal court opinion indicating that the Florida state courts have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the patent involved. The cases so cited were license dispute cases, and, while involving related patent issues, did not require, as did Scha-chel and as does this case, a determination of the validity of the patent.
Jacobs’ alternative argument in support of state court jurisdiction is that because they do not have a remedy in federal court, “equivalent” state remedies are available. In support of its position, Jacobs cites cases which we distinguish as involving situations in which there was no federal cause of action. Here, Jacobs’ claim is founded upon an alleged patent infringement and, as stated above, jurisdiction thereof lies exclusively in the federal courts.
Accordingly, we must grant the petition for writ of prohibition and direct the circuit court to dismiss the complaint.
We certify to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance whether there is state court jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case.
LEHAN, C.J., CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of A.C. and A.M. v. State, 751 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…H., 670 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing an order terminating parental rights and remanding for further proceedings because the order of termination failed to give detailed attention to the manifest best interests of the child); In re C.K., 601 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (reversing an order terminating parental rights and remanding for further proceedings because neither the order nor the transcript established that the trial court had considered the required statutory factors). In this case, nei…
-
In the interest of K.M. and A.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 788 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…f parental rights as to the mother and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to consider all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 and enter an appropriate written order with factual findings. See In the Interest of C.K., 601 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., concur.…
-
Jacobs Wind Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 626 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1993)…BARKETT, Chief Justice. We have for review Department of Transportation v. Padgett, 601 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA1992), which certified a question of great public importance. The issue presented is whether a state court has jurisdiction over takings and conversion claims against the state with respect to property that is the subject of a patent wh…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc., 405 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Jacobs Wind Elec. Co., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp., 919 F.2d 726 (Fed. Cir. 1990)