Natec, Inc. v. Deter Co., 93-2882
| Decision Date | 08 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2882,93-2882 |
| Citation | 28 F.3d 28 |
| Parties | NATEC, INC. and Natec Resources, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DETER COMPANY, et al., Defendants. DETER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, v. BENETECH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard T. Redano and Steve Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt & Assoc., Houston, TX, for appellants.
James R. Higgins, Jr. and Dana L. Lucas, Middleton & Reutlinger, Louisville, KY, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before KING, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
I.
Appellants, Natec, Inc., Natec Resources, Inc., and Benetech, hold licenses to operate a patent owned by appellee, Deter Company. The license agreements were entered into following settlement of separate patent infringement lawsuits in courts other than the Southern District of Texas, where this suit was filed. The instant suit sought various types of relief, including a declaration that the license agreements were unenforceable. This particular claim for relief alleged that the patent, which is the subject of the license agreements, expired before the termination date of the license agreement, and that Deter could not enforce the license agreement after expiration of the patent. Deter filed motions for summary judgment urging the district court to give res judicata effect to the earlier consent judgments and settlements. The district court essentially agreed with appellee's plea of res judicata and dismissed plaintiffs' suit.
II.
We are persuaded that we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a), the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal where the district court's jurisdiction was based, in whole or in part, on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1338. Section 1338(a) provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents...."
The district court's jurisdiction in this case was based in part on Sec. 1338. The right of the patent holder, Deter, to enforce the settlement agreements and obtain royalties for use of the patent after it expires is a substantial question of federal patent law. See Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, 85 S.Ct. 176, 13 L.Ed.2d 99 (1964); Hemstreet v. Spiegel, Inc., 851 F.2d 348 (Fed.Cir.1988). Because the plaintiffs' right to relief depends upon resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp.
...licensing agreement that had arisen out of the settlement of a patent infringement suit was barred by res judicata. Natec, Inc. v. Deter Co., 28 F.3d 28 (5th Cir.1994). Declining to reach the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that "[t]he right of the patent holder . . . to enforce the settleme......
-
Uspps v. Avery Dennison Corp..
...of an appeal where the district court's jurisdiction was based, in whole or in part, on 28 U.S.C. § 1338.” Natec, Inc. v. Deter Co., 28 F.3d 28, 29 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Where an appeal over which the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction is taken to this Court in error, we are ......
-
Acoustic Systems Inc. v. Wenger Corp.
...that federal patent law creates the cause of action or federal patent law is a necessary element of the claim); Natec, Inc. v. Deter Co., 28 F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 1994)(same). In Scherbatskoy and Natec, Inc., we transferred to the Federal Circuit appeals from such final decisions after concludi......
- Hunter v. City of Beaumont, 1:94-CV-0421.