in Re Haynes and Boone, LLP and Patrick L. Hughes, 376 S.W.3d 839

This is a legal malpractice suit arising from alleged failure to timely file Sherman Act claims in an antitrust matter.
Rx.com, Inc. sued Haynes & Boone, LLP and Patrick L. Hughes in Texas state court; the defendants removed to federal court arguing embedded federal questions warranted federal jurisdiction.
The federal district court initially held no federal-question jurisdiction; the case was remanded to state court.
Relators argued subsequent authorities (USPPS and Minton) supported exclusive federal jurisdiction over the malpractice claim due to embedded antitrust issues.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded state courts may exercise jurisdiction over the state-law malpractice claim and denied mandamus relief stopping the state-court proceeding.
The decision emphasizes concurrent jurisdiction and rejects an exclusive federal rule for all such malpractice claims with embedded antitrust issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether embedded antitrust issues preclude state-court jurisdiction	Relators rely on Grable/Minton to show exclusive federal jurisdiction	Relators seek Grable-style exclusive jurisdiction for antitrust issues	No exclusive federal jurisdiction; state court may hear the malpractice claim
Whether Grable applies to antitrust, not patent law	Grable framework should govern embedded federal questions	Grable is limited; antitrust does not create exclusive jurisdiction	Grable does not control; Gulf Offshore governs concurrent jurisdiction in this context
Whether state courts have presumed concurrent jurisdiction over federal questions	Concurrent jurisdiction should be displaced by exclusive federal rule	No explicit/implicit directive confers exclusive jurisdiction over all arising-under antitrust claims	Presumption of concurrent jurisdiction stands; no clear rule of exclusivity applies here
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plea to the jurisdiction	Jurisdiction should be exclusive due to embedded federal issues	Jurisdiction should remain with state court absent clear exclusivity	No abuse; trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the state-law malpractice claim

Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (four-factor test for embedded-federal-question jurisdiction; substantial, disputed federal issue must exist)
Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1981) (presumption of concurrent jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction requires explicit/implicit Congressional directive)
Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011) (Texas Supreme Court held exclusive federal patent jurisdiction; limited Grable framework in patent context)
USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 647 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2011) (applied Grable to determine embedded patent-law issues; transfer to Federal Circuit possible)
General Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 260 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1922) (federal antitrust claims historically within exclusive federal jurisdiction; later jurisprudence recognizes concurrent jurisdiction for non-patent contexts)
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (U.S. 1986) (rejected bright-line rules for arising-under; require contextual, state-federal balance)
Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1990) (concurrent jurisdiction over civil RICO actions; discusses limits of exclusive federal jurisdiction)