Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
556 U.S. 635 (2009)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
HIF Bio, Inc. (plaintiff) filed a complaint in a state court against Carlsbad Technology, Inc. (defendant). The complaint alleged violations of state and federal patent law. Carlsbad removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), which allows a case in state court to be removed to federal court if the case includes at least one claim that invokes federal jurisdiction. After the case was removed, Carlsbad motioned to dismiss the only federal claim in the suit. Carlsbad argued that HIF Bio had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. The district court then remanded the case to state court, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which gives a federal court the authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if all claims that grant the court original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Carlsbad appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the district court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction to decide the case because the state patent-law claims implicate federal patent-law claims. The court of appeals denied reviewing the appeal on the ground that under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c), (d), a federal appellate court may not review remands for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The decision was appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.