期刊名称：Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review
印刷版ISSN：1528-8625
出版年度：2003
卷号：9
期号：2
页码：253-311
出版社：University of Michigan Law School
摘要：The law governing the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction was brought into question in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Circulation Systems, Inc. The Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction over Vornado's appeal rested solely on Vornado's counterclaim alleging patent infringement by Holmes. Holmes's complaint sought a declaratory judgment of no trade dress infringement and did not include any patent law claims. While the Federal Circuit found appellate jurisdiction over Vornado's appeal based on the counterclaim of patent infringement, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court focused on the language in 35 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which defines the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction by the statute's reference in 35 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). The Court indicated that the "arising under" language in § 1338(a) invokes the well-pleaded complaint rule. The Court noted that the well pleaded complaint rule provides that whether a case "aris[es] under" federal law, or in this case patent law, must be determined from the plaintiff's complaint. The Court therefore concluded that a counterclaim, such as Vornado's, did not "aris[e] under" patent law because it was not contained within the plaintiff's, in this case Holmes's, complaint, and thus could not give the Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction[...] The Supreme Court's decision in Holmes presents significant questions about the scope of the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction and the removal and exclusive jurisdiction of federal district courts over patent law claims. This uncertainty threatens the uniformity in patent law that the Federal Circuit was charged with creating. This Article addresses these questions and concludes that the potential for non-uniformity resulting from the ruling in Holmes is real. The rationale underlying the Holmes decision will divert patent law counterclaims from the federal judicial system, not just the Federal Circuit's appellate review. In addition, situations will likely arise where regional circuits revisit issues already decided by the Federal Circuit in light of the circuit's pre-1982 case law. A body of state law on patent issues may also be developed. To prevent these situations from occurring, the effect of Holmes on the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction must be limited and regional circuits and state courts must look to the Federal Circuit for guidance on patent law issues. Just as the Federal Circuit gives proper deference to regional circuit decisions on non-patent law issues, regional circuits and state courts should give deference to the Federal Circuit on issues related to patent law. Additionally, legislative responses could provide an absolute solution to
关键词：Uniformity; Patent law; Federal Circuit; United States Supreme Court; Appellate jurisdiction; Holmes Group Inc. v. Vornado Circulation Systems Inc.; Patent infringement
