Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) extends only to cases in which the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal patent law. A claim supported by alternative theories does not arise under patent law unless patent law is essential to each of those theories.
Facts:
- Colt Industries Operating Corp. (Colt) manufactured and sold M16 rifles, holding numerous patents and maintaining trade secrets related to the rifle's specifications.
- Christianson, a former Colt employee, was subject to a non-disclosure agreement regarding Colt's proprietary information.
- After leaving Colt, Christianson founded International Trade Services, Inc. (ITS) and began selling M16 parts, allegedly using information Colt considered proprietary.
- Colt learned that Christianson was supplying M16 specifications to other companies and sought a court order to stop him, which was denied.
- Colt sent letters to Christianson's current and potential customers, claiming Christianson was illegally misappropriating Colt's trade secrets and urging them to cease business with him.
- Christianson alleged that this conduct, among other actions, drove his company out of business.
Procedural Posture:
- Christianson and ITS sued Colt Industries Operating Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of federal antitrust law and state tortious interference law.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Christianson, finding Colt's patents invalid and its trade secrets unenforceable.
- Colt, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The Federal Circuit, concluding it lacked jurisdiction, transferred the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit, after raising the issue on its own, concluded that the Federal Circuit's transfer was 'clearly wrong' and transferred the case back.
- The Federal Circuit adhered to its original jurisdictional ruling but proceeded to decide the merits of the case 'in the interest of justice,' reversing the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court's jurisdiction arise under federal patent law for purposes of Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint asserts non-patent claims, but a patent law issue is an essential element of only one of several alternative theories supporting those claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. For a case to arise under federal patent law, the plaintiff's right to relief must necessarily depend on a substantial question of federal patent law for each theory presented in the well-pleaded complaint, not just one. The Court applied the well-pleaded complaint rule, traditionally used for general federal question jurisdiction, to the specific context of patent jurisdiction under § 1338. Christianson's complaint alleged antitrust and tortious interference claims, which are not created by federal patent law. While one theory supporting these claims—that Colt's anticompetitive conduct was unjustified because its patents were invalid—depended on patent law, other theories did not. For example, Christianson also alleged that Colt's actions were wrongful because Colt had given him permission to use the information, or because Colt's letters contained other falsehoods unrelated to patent validity. Because the complaint presented viable, alternative non-patent theories for relief, the claims did not 'necessarily' depend on patent law, and thus did not 'arise under' it for jurisdictional purposes.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The concurring opinion agrees that jurisdiction lies with the Seventh Circuit because Christianson's claims were created by antitrust law, not patent law, and the patent issue arose as a defense. However, the concurrence emphasizes that the determination of whether a case 'arises under' patent law for appellate jurisdiction might differ from the determination for original district court jurisdiction. An appellate court should look at the case as it was actually litigated, considering amendments to the complaint. For example, if a patent claim is added later, or if it is the only claim that survives to judgment, appellate jurisdiction should lie with the Federal Circuit, even if the original complaint did not support it. In this specific case, however, even looking at the litigated issues, no true patent law claim was ever asserted, so the majority's conclusion is correct.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the Federal Circuit's exclusive appellate jurisdiction by strictly applying the well-pleaded complaint rule. It establishes that jurisdiction is determined by the claims asserted at the outset, not the issues or defenses that ultimately become central to the litigation. This prevents litigants from forum-shopping by injecting patent law theories into non-patent claims to secure review in the Federal Circuit. The decision also provides important guidance on the 'law of the case' doctrine, discouraging appellate courts from engaging in 'jurisdictional ping-pong' by urging transferee courts to accept a transfer unless the initial decision was clearly erroneous, thereby promoting judicial efficiency.
Unlock the full brief for Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.