Legal Opinion
Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided January 11, 2011No. 2010-1091PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
This case requires us once again to consider the circumstances under which a federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim for legal malpractice arising out of a patent dispute. Warrior Sports, Inc., a patent owner, filed a malpractice action against the law firm of Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C. (“Dickinson”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court regarded Warrior’s claims as raising only state law issues and therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We conclude that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Boris SchwartzCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Coleman v. GurwinMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
- Air Measurement Technologies, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Minton v. GunnTexas Supreme Court · 2011
- Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents of the UniversityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.