33 Cited authorities

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (1987) Cited 11,216 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust
463 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 10,434 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988) Cited 3,126 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
Holmes Grp., v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.
535 U.S. 826 (2002) Cited 1,390 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC
571 U.S. 191 (2014) Cited 308 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in a patent infringement declaratory judgment action filed by an alleged infringer, the defendant patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement
Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Nat. Mediation Bd.
956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 2,081 times
Holding that "[e]ven if Rule 54(b) allows parties to request district courts to revisit earlier rulings, the moving party must do so within the strictures of the law of the case doctrine"
Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc.
261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 912 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "summons with notice may serve as an initial pleading under section 1446(b)."
Albert v. Loksen
239 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 415 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff must allege "either that the statement complained of caused . . . 'special harm' or that it constituted slander 'per se.'"
California Public Employees' v. Worldcom, Inc.
368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 336 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 22 does not bar removal under § 1452
Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co.
624 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 177 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the removal clock does not start to run until the plaintiff serves the defendant with a paper that explicitly specifies the amount of monetary damages sought"
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,280 times 134 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 49,966 times 149 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1446 Cited 21,722 times 141 Legal Analyses
Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338 Cited 5,395 times 71 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

Gorfinkel v. Vayntrub et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"

Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"

Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Holding that, in a patent infringement declaratory judgment action filed by an alleged infringer, the defendant patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement

Holding that "[e]ven if Rule 54(b) allows parties to request district courts to revisit earlier rulings, the moving party must do so within the strictures of the law of the case doctrine"

Holding that a "summons with notice may serve as an initial pleading under section 1446(b)."

Holding that a plaintiff must allege "either that the statement complained of caused . . . 'special harm' or that it constituted slander 'per se.'"

Holding that § 22 does not bar removal under § 1452

Holding that "the removal clock does not start to run until the plaintiff serves the defendant with a paper that explicitly specifies the amount of monetary damages sought"

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"