WPCG ޼`h؜DMVa?Gt߮sS"%Pjα k6}[ =-%zTȣ\+GXK=*tF$W}/gπT+_M]N$;dlZQ E^U8չ1L*ģ ˩)HO]i=HHlXR.poW+Cw51n1 0v1 0`"2 0`2 0`2 0`B3 0`3 084 0:4 02 5 0>5 0::6 0Yt6 0_6 0 ,7 0j68 09 B*$; D/N; 0}; 0h< D/= 0> B> 06? 0EU*EEbFFFFFFFF zG 0NGBrewer first draft  '  0 .   (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)}q)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUUb)ROGRAMS3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5i)HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$      3  M   _TheCombscourtquotedwithapprovalfrom_Ausherman_Ԁv.Stump,643F.2d715(10thCir.1981)whereitsaid:   Thetrialcourtconcludedthat,notwithstandingthefactthat_Ausherman_Ԁhadliberallysprinkledthewordinfringement t throughouthispleading,thecomplaintdidnotsetforthacivilactionarisingunderanyActofCongressrelatingto 8 patents,asrequiredbysection1338(a).8?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular   R$      1  M   _(a)ThedistrictcourtsshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionofanycivilactionarisingunderanyActofCongress  relatingtopatents,plantvarietyprotection,copyrightsandtrademarks.Suchjurisdictionshallbeexclusiveofthecourts t ofthestatesinpatent,plantvarietyprotectionandcopyrightcases.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKg<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSh\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kg<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSh\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kg<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSh\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7Q(X7  ?i%2A`Arial?  XXXSh\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dP)1dxd(|G2$ !.8d d 8         0  r<:zTop of For7T(X7  ?i%2A`Arial?  XXXSh\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7P)2dxd0KS.SampleKg<6X9`(Courier NewKSh\  `&Times New RomanS d0.Strong (|3E$ !.8d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  8dl6TypewriterKg<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSh\  `&Times New RomanS^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3E$ !.8d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ddX[ZA<< c<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial X R$      2  M   _InCombsthecourthelditdidnothavejurisdictionbecausethepatentinfringementquestioncouldnotbe  reachedwithoutfirstdecidingthevalidityoftheassignmentastatelawquestion.H(O$ !.8d d8     _  :8i4XXdd 8  @ k:INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#:k #Ԉ &   June23,2000Session L X6X: #:XX6#A.W.BREWERv.FISHOCK,INC.X6X:  J @@ InterlocutoryAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.152898DaleC.Workman,Judge  6 FILEDNOVEMBER17,2000    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199901988_COA_ԄR9CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThisisaRule9interlocutoryappealforadeterminationastowhetherfederaldistrictcourthad x  exclusivesubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearthismatter.TheAppelleefiledsuitinCircuitCourt d averringthathewastheownerofaninventionknownas TheBoss,andhehadenteredintoa P LicenseAgreementwithFiShock,Inc.,inwhichFiShockagreedtomanufacture,marketandsell <  TheBossandcompensateMr.Brewer,andthatFiShockbreachedtheagreement.Mr.Brewer (x furtheraverredthatFiShockintentionallyinterferedwithhispropertyrights,therebydenyinghim d compensationtowhichhewasentitledandthathisinventionwasprotectedbyaUnitedStates P Patent.Mr.Brewersuedforcompensatorydamagesnottoexceed$1,000,000.FiShockfileda < motiontodismissaverringthatonlytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourthadsubjectmatterjurisdiction ( under28U.S.C.1338(a).Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion.DefendantsoughtanRule9  interlocutoryappealwhichwasgrantedbytheTrialCourtandthisCourt.Weaffirmthedecision  oftheTrialCourt.   TennR.App.P.9InterlocutoryAppeal;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisaffirmed.  t   #:X6\#X6X.:HoustonM._Goddard_,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr., L  andD.Michael_Swiney_,JJ.,joined. 8!  Lynn_Tarpy_ԀandThomasM._Leveille_,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellantFiShock,Inc. #`" D.ScottHurley,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,A.W.Brewer $8 $ ^  OPINION #:XX6 #X6X: &"&     ThisisaRule9interlocutoryappealforadeterminationastowhetherfederaldistrict )$) courthadexclusivesubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearthismatter.TheAppelleefiledsuitin p*%* CircuitCourtaverringthathewastheownerofaninventionknownas TheBoss,andhehad \+&+ enteredintoaLicenseAgreementwithFiShock,Inc.,inwhichFiShockagreedtomanufacture, H,', marketandsell TheBossandcompensateMr.Brewer,andthatFiShockbreachedthe 4-(- _agreement.Mr.BrewerfurtheraverredthatFiShockintentionallyinterferedwithhisproperty  rights,therebydenyinghimcompensationtowhichhewasentitledandthathisinventionwas  protectedbyaUnitedStatesPatent.Mr.Brewersuedforcompensatorydamagesnottoexceed  $1,000,000.FiShockfiledamotiontodismissaverringthatonlytheUnitedStatesDistrict t Courthadsubjectmatterjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1338(a).#:XX6 #X6X: ` #:XX6#X6X:  ThesoleissueinthisinterlocutoryappealiswhetherKnoxCountyCircuitCourterredin 8  failingtogranttheMotiontoDismissfiledbytheDefendant,FiShock,Inc..Defendantavers $ t thattheTennesseestatecourtlackssubjectmatterjurisdictionovertheComplaintfiledbythe  ` Plaintiff,A.W.Brewer.  L  &  @c c I.FACTSANDSTATEMENTOFTHECASE     BecauseonaMotiontoDismiss,wemusttakethefactsallegedbythePlaintiffinhis   complaintastrue,thecomplaintaspertinentherereadsasfollows:   '8   ` 3.PlaintiffwouldaverthatonoraboutMarch9,1988,Plaintiffentered \ intoacertainagreementwiththeDefendantstyled Memorandumof H Understanding.Pursuanttothatagreement,Plaintiffagreedtoprovideto 4 Defendantcertaininformationregardinganinventionforwhichhewas  p responsible,withsaidinventionbeingawaterlevelmeasuringdeviceknownas  \  TheBoss.PlaintiffagreedtoenterintonegotiationswiththeDefendantforthe H purposeofallowingDefendanttomanufactureandsellthisdevice.Plaintiff 4 agreedtoallowDefendanttomakeaprototypeoftheinventionandtoshowthe   sameatatradeshowforpurposeofdeterminingmarketreceptionforthe   invention.Further,pursuanttotheagreement,Defendantexpresslyagreedthat  Plaintiffwouldretainanyandallpropertyandpatentrights,andthatDefendant  wouldnototherwiseattempttouse,sell,ortransferPlaintiffsdesign,orto  otherwiseinfringeuponPlaintiffsrightstotheinvention....l   8   ` 4.PlaintiffwouldaverthatonoraboutApril4,1988,Plaintiffentered X  intoacertain LicenseAgreementwiththeDefendant.PursuanttothatLicense D! Agreement,Defendantagreedtomanufacture,marketandselltheinventionofthe 0"  PlaintiffandtocompensatePlaintiffforsuchrightsunderthetermsoftheLicense #l! Agreement....$X"   8   ` 5.PlaintiffwouldaverthataftertheexecutionoftheLicenseAgreement.. $D # .,Defendantengagedinnumerousactivitieswhichviolatedandbreachedthe %0!$ agreementtotheharmanddetrimentofthePlaintiff.Plaintiffwouldaverthat &"% Defendant:'#&   8   ` (a)FailedandrefusedtomakeroyaltypaymentstoPlaintiffforwater (#' levelunitsthatweresoldbyDefendant;)$(   8   ` (b)FailedandrefusedtomakeroyaltypaymentstoPlaintiffforhoseunits |*%) thatweresoldbyDefendant.h+&*   8   ` 6.Asaresultofnumerousviolationsoftheagreementbetweenthe  PlaintiffandDefendant,PlaintiffnotifiedDefendantofhisintentnottorenewthe  agreementattheendoftheone(1)yeartermasprovidedtherein.Plaintiff  subsequentlyattemptedtoallowotherpartiestomanufactureandmarkethis t invention,andevenenteredintocertainagreementswithotherpartiesto ` accomplishthesame.However,DefendantcontinuedtomanufacturePlaintiffs L  invention;usingvirtuallythesamemanufacturingprocess.Plaintiffwouldaver 8  thattheDefendantsimplycontinuedtocopyandmanufacturehisinvented $ t product,changingonlythenameoftheproducttothatof CarpentersChoice.  ` PlaintiffwouldaverthatDefendantevencontinuedtousethesamepackagingfor  L  theproduct,makingvirtuallynochangesinthepackagingorwordingonthe  8  packaging.AsaresultoftheseinflammatoryactionsonthepartoftheDefendant, $  indirectviolationandbreachofanyandallagreementsenteredintobytheparties,   Plaintiffhasbeenunabletomarketorotherwisemanufactureorsellhisproduct,   duetothefactthatDefendantalreadyhasthatproductonthemarketwithsales   agreementswithvariousparties,therebyshuttingthePlaintiffoutofthemarket   forhisownproduct.p   8   ` 7.PlaintiffwouldaverthattheDefendanthasintentionallyinterferedin \ thepropertyrightsofPlaintiff,therebydenyingPlaintiffthecompensationto H whichhewasentitled,andfurtherinhibitinganddestroyingPlaintiffsabilityto 4 dobusinessbyselling,manufacturingormarketinghisowninvention. p   8   ` 8.Plaintiffwouldaverthattheconceptsandideaspertainingtothe  \ productknownas TheBossareprotectedbyaUnitedStatesPatent,andthatthe H actionsoftheDefendantconstituteaninfringementuponthatpatent.Plaintiff 4 wouldfurtheraverthatsaidinfringementwasintentionalandpurposefulonthe   partoftheDefendantforthesolepurposeofDefendantenrichingitselfat   Plaintiffsexpense.   8   ` Wherefore,premisesconsidered,PlaintiffwouldsuetheDefendantfor  compensatorydamagesnottoexceedOneMillionDollard($1,000,000.00),and  forhiscostsandsuchotherreliefastheCourtandthejurywoulddeemproper....l     TheDefendantfiledamotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02(1)and12.02(6)ofthe D! Tenn.R.Civ.P.,assertingthattheStatecourtdidnothavesubjectmatterjurisdictionbecause 0"  exclusivejurisdictionofacauseofactionbaseduponpatentinfringementisintheUnitedStates #l! DistrictCourtsandanyissuesconcerninganallegedbreachofthelicenseagreementwere $X" integrallyrelatedtothepatentissueforwhichthefederalcourtshaveexclusivejurisdiction.The $D # trialcourtdeniedthemotiontodismiss.Defendantfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappeal %0!$ whichwasultimatelygrantedbytheCircuitCourtandthisCourt. &"%   @GGII.LAWANDDISCUSSION (#'     Subjectmatterjurisdictionrelatestotherightofthecourttoadjudicateortomakean |*%) awardthroughtheremediesprovidedbylawuponfactsproved,oradmitted,infavorofor h+&* againstpersonswhopresentthemorwhoarebroughtbeforethecourtundersanctionoflaw.  Jurisdictionofthesubject-matterisnotwaivedbyappearanceandmaybetakenadvantageofat  anystageoftheproceeding.SeeBrownv.Brown,155Tenn.530,296S.W.356,358(Tenn.  1928)andthecasescitedtherein. t   Pursuantto28U.S.C.1338(a)  #  1      ׀theFederalcourtshaveexclusivejurisdictionofall L  casesarisingunderthepatentlaws,butnotallquestionsinwhichapatentmaybethesubject 8  matterofthecontroversy.Thestatecourtsmaytryquestionsoftitle,andmayconstrueand $ t enforcecontractsrelatingtopatents.NewMarshallEngineCo.v.MarshallEngineCo.,223  ` U.S.473,478,32S.Ct.238,239(1912);Combsv.Plough,Inc.,k  #  2      ׀681F.2d469,470(6thCir.  L  1982).  8    Thegeneralruleisthatwhereanactionisbroughttoenforce,setaside,orannula   contract,theactionsarisesoutofthecontract,andnotunderthepatentlaws,eventhoughthe   contractconcernsapatentright.Combs,681F.2dat470(citationsomitted).TheCombscourt   wentonandaffirmedthetesttoestablishjurisdictionunderfederallawassetforthbythecourt   inDillMfg.Co.v.Goff,125F.2d676,678(6thCir.1942). p 8  (1),theplaintiffinitiallymusthavetherighttosueforinfringementeventhough H histitleischallengedandinthesuitmaybedefeated;(2),hemustplanthissuit 4 uponsuchrightasapatentinfringementsuitrequiringnoaidofanequitycourtas  p aprimaryconditionfortherecoveryofdamagesorthegrantingofaninjunction. \     InChristiansonv.ColtIndustriesOperatingCorp.,486U.S.800,108S.Ct.2166(1988), 4 theSupremeCourtexplainedwhenanactionarisesunderfederalpatentlaw:   Ѐ 8  [I]nordertodemonstratethatacaseisone"arisingunder"federalpatentlaw"the  plaintiffmustsetupsomeright,title,orinterestunderthepatentlaws,oratleast  makeitappearthatsomerightorprivilegewillbedefeatedbyoneconstruction,  orsustainedbytheoppositeconstruction,oftheselaws."...Adistrictcourt's l federalquestionjurisdiction...extendsover"onlythosecasesinwhichawell X  pleadedcomplaintestablisheseitherthatfederallawcreatesthecauseofactionor D! thattheplaintiff'srighttoreliefnecessarilydependsonresolutionofasubstantial 0"  questionoffederallaw,"inthat"federallawisanecessaryelementofoneofthe #l! wellpleaded...claims."Linguisticconsistency,towhichwehavehistorically $X" adhered,demandsthat1338(a)jurisdictionlikewiseextendonlytothosecasesin $D # whichawellpleadedcomplaintestablishedeitherthatfederalpatentlawcreates %0!$ thecauseofactionorthattheplaintiffsrighttoreliefnecessarilydependson  resolutionofasubstantialquestionoffederalpatentlaw,inthatpatentlawisa  necessaryelementofoneofthewellpleadedclaims.   Christianson,486U.S.at80809,108S.Ct.at2173(citationsomitted). `   TheCourtfurtherexplainedthewellpleadedcomplaintruleinthecontextofapatent 8  case: $ t 8  Underthewellpleadedcomplaintrule,asappropriatelyadaptedto1338(a),  ` whetheraclaim"arisesunder"patentlaw"'mustbedeterminedfromwhat  L  necessarilyappearsintheplaintiff'sstatementofhisownclaiminthebillor  8  declaration,unaidedbyanythingallegedinanticipationoravoidanceofdefenses $  whichitisthoughtthedefendantmayinterpose.'"Thus,acaseraisingafederal   patentlawdefensedoesnot,forthatreasonalone,"ariseunder"patentlaw,"even   ifthedefenseisanticipatedintheplaintiff'scomplaint,andevenifbothparties   admitthedefenseistheonlyquestiontrulyatissueinthecase."Thus,acase   raisingafederalpatentlawdefensedoesnot,forthatreasonalone, ariseunder p patentlaw, evenifthedefenseisanticipatedintheplaintiffscomplaint,and \ evenifbothpartiesadmitthatthedefenseistheonlyquestiontrulyatissueinthe H case.Ontheotherhand,merelybecauseaclaimmakesnoreferencetofederal 4 patentlawdoesnotnecessarilymeantheclaimdoesnot"ariseunder"patentlaw.  p Justas"aplaintiffmaynotdefeatremovalbyadmittingtopleadnecessaryfederal  \ questionsinacomplaint,"soaplaintiffmaynotdefeat1338(a)jurisdictionby H omittingtopleadnecessaryfederalpatentlawquestions.4   Christianson,486U.S.at80910andn.3,108S.Ct.at217475(citationsomitted).     AclosescrutinyofthecomplaintfiledinthismatterrevealsthatthePlaintiffseeksthe  enforcementoftheLicenseAgreement,includingthepaymentofroyaltiesforthewaterleveland  hoseunits,affirmationofhisrighttocanceltheLicenseAgreement,andcompensatorydamages l forthebreachoftheLicenseAgreementbytheDefendantscontinuingtomanufactureand X  distribute!includingexecutingdistributorsalesagreements! TheBossunitsunderthename D! of CarpentersChoice.WhilethePlaintiffhasprayedfor suchotherreliefastheCourtand 0"  thejurywoulddeemproper,hedoesnotspecificallyseekaninjunctionortripledamagesashe #l! couldunderpatentlawinfringement.Hejustseeksdamagesforthebreachof% s ԀtheLicense $X" Agreement. $D #   AsthecourtfoundinNewMarshallEngineCo.v.MarshallEngineCo.,223U.S.473, &"% 478,32S.Ct.238,239(1912),theallegationscontainedinthecomplaintdonotinvolveany '#& constructionofthemeaningoreffectofapatent. (#'   TheDefendantarguesthat8ofthecomplaintsetsthiscaseunderthejurisdictionofthe |*%) federaldistrictcourtandnotunderthejurisdictionofthestatecourt.Untiltherightsofthe h+&* partiesundertheLicenseAgreementareadjudicateditwillnotbeknownwhetherornotthere  actuallywasany infringementoftherightsoftheholderofthelettersofpatent.Thatthe  Plaintiffusedtheword infringementtwiceinhiscomplaintisirrelevant.  #  3      ׀    Additionally,wefindthefollowinghelpfulindeterminingwhetherasuitarisesunder ` federalpatentlaworunderstatelaw.ThecourtinRustEvaderCorp.v.Cowatch,842F.Supp. L  171,173(W.D.Penn.1993)quotingwithapprovalfromBeechAircraftCorp.v.EdoCorp.,900 8  F.2d1237,1248(Fed.Cir.1993),distinguishedbetweeninventorshipandownership. $ t 8   ` Inventorshipandownershipareseparateissues.Inventorshipis a  L  questionofwho(m)actuallyinventedthesubjectmatterclaimedinapatent.  8  Ownership,however,isthequestionsofwho(m)ownslegaltitletothesubject $  matterinapatent....      Herethereisnoquestionastowhominvented TheBoss.Whatisatissueinthe   complaintistheLicenseAgreementandtherightsoftherespectivepartiesunderthat   Agreement,includingenumerationundertheAgreementandwhatmaybetermedtortuous p interferencewiththePlaintiffsrightstocontractwithothermanufacturersand/ordistributorsof \ hisinvention. H   Muchofthelawcitedbybothpartiesintheirbriefswassuccinctlyreviewedandsetforth  p inHoldStitchFabricMachineCo.v.MayHosieryMills,184Tenn.19,195S.W.18(1946),  \ wherethecourtfoundthatthebasicpurposeofthesuitwastoremovecloudsonthetitleof H complainanttocertainproperty,whichhappenedtobepatentrights,andheldthatthestate 4 ChanceryCourtproperlyhadjurisdiction.     AsthecourtsaidinLuckettv.Delpark,270U.S.496,at510,46S.Ct.397(1926),  citingtheprinciplelaiddowninWilsonv.Sandford,51U.S.(10How.)99(1850), wherea  patenteecomplainantmakeshissuitoneforrecoveryofroyaltiesunderacontractoflicenseor  assignment,orfordamagesforabreachofitscovenants,orforaspecificperformancethereof,or l askstheaidofthecourtindeclaringaforfeitureofthelicense,orinrestoringanuncloudedtitle X  tothepatent,hedoesnotgivethefederalDistrictCourtjurisdictionofthecauseasonearising D! underthepatentlaws.Normayheconferitinsuchascasebyaddingtohisbillanavermentthat 0"  aftertheforfeitureshallbedeclared,orthetitletothepatentshallberestored,hefearsthe #l! defendantwillinfringe,andthereforeasksaninjunctiontopreventit.Itisplainthatthe $X" PlaintiffinthisactionhaschosenandbasedhisactionontheLicenseAgreementandnoton $D # patentlaw. %0!$  &"%   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtretainingjurisdictionisaffirmedandthecaseisremanded  tothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.CostsonappealareadjudgedagainsttheappellantFi  Shockanditssurety.     `     h _________________________________________ L     `     h HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE 8