Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Company
728 F.3d 1374
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Wawrzynski appeals two district court summary judgments in Heinz's favor resolving infringement and preemption issues.
- The case originated in Michigan state court; Heinz removed to federal court on diversity grounds and the matter moved to Pennsylvania.
- Wawrzynski owns the ’990 patent for a method of dipping and wiping food in a condiment container named 'Little Dipper'.
- Heinz released a Dip & Squeeze packet that allegedly performs similar dipping and squeezing functionality.
- District court held that federal patent law preempts the state-law claims and that Heinz did not infringe the ’990 patent.
- Wawrzynski conceded non-infringement and provided a covenant not to sue, while maintaining the complaint framed as state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over patent issues. | Wawrzynski: AIA §1295(a)(1) governs appeal. | Heinz: Pre-AIA §1295 applies or, alternatively, jurisdiction via counterclaim. | No jurisdiction under either version; transfer appropriate. |
| Whether the AIA version of §1295(a)(1) provides jurisdiction. | Wawrzynski: counterclaim suffices for jurisdiction under AIA. | Heinz: action commenced pre-AIA, so AIA does not apply. | AIA §1295(a)(1) does not apply; lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether the complaint alleged patent infringement to create federal-question jurisdiction. | Wawrzynski: patent issues are embedded in the complaint. | Heinz: complaint only asserts state-law claims; no patent count. | Complaint did not plead patent infringement; no federal question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyden v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 807 F.2d 934 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (jurisdictional threshold must be cleared in every case)
- Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (consent-based jurisdictional questions; threshold inquiry)
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (jurisdictional allocation; amendments via consent)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; plaintiff masters jurisdictional basis)