Forrester Environmental Services, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
715 F.3d 1329
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Forrester and Wheelabrator compete in phosphate-based treatment systems for stabilizing heavy metals in waste.
- Forrester alleged misrepresentations about U.S. patent coverage by Wheelabrator to Kobin in Taiwan.
- Kobin and Bio Max in Taiwan held licenses related to WES-PHix; Kobin licensed FESI-BOND variant from Forrester.
- Forrester filed state-court claims (consumer protection, tortious interference, trade secret misappropriation) in NH.
- Wheelabrator removed to federal court, arguing federal patent-law jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1338 and Christianson v. Colt Industries.
- District court granted summary judgment on several claims, then Forrester appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and merits; this court vacates and remands to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had original jurisdiction to support removal. | Forrester: jurisdiction lacking; claims do not arise under patent law. | Wheelabrator: removal proper under §1338 via substantial patent-law issue (Christianson). | No original jurisdiction; case vacated and remanded. |
| Whether patent-law issues are 'substantial' under Gunn v. Minton. | Forrester: patent questions substantial; required for relief. | Wheelabrator: patent questions are substantial; affect relief. | Patent issues not substantial under Gunn; no federal arising under jurisdiction. |
| Whether hypothetical collateral estoppel effects or extraterritorial conduct create jurisdiction. | Forrester: potential future effects could arise in federal court. | Wheelabrator: extraterritorial actions abroad undermine jurisdiction; no U.S. infringement contemplated. | Extrinsic Taiwan conduct yields no substantial federal jurisdiction; no future U.S. infringement risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1988) (arising-under patent-law test applies to state-law claims)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (U.S. 2013) (patent-law issues must be substantial to create jurisdiction)
- Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 986 F.2d 476 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (business disparagement premised on patent claim may arise under §1338)
- Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (injurious falsehood involving patent rights involves substantial questions of patent law)
- Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (foreign conduct limits patent-right protections; extraterritoriality)