Fed Circuit Watch: Fed Circuit Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Antitrust Claim

On February 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short order refusing jurisdiction over a Walker Process antitrust claim, and transferred the case, Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As a preliminary note, a Walker Process claim is a federal claim under the Sherman (15 U.S.C. §2) Antitrust Act based on alleged fraudulent prosecution of a patent, its enforcement of which may be a federal antitrust violation.[1]

Federal courts, unlike state courts which are courts of general jurisdiction, are courts of limited jurisdiction, which is determined by Congressional act.[2]  Specifically, the Fed Circuit’s jurisdiction to hear cases is spelled out in 28 U.S.C. §1295(a):

(a)  The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction:

(1) of an appeal from the final decision of a district court of the United States . . . relating to patents or plant variety protection;

(2) of an appeal . . . when the claim is founded upon an Act of Congress . . . of an executive department providing for internal revenue . . . . ;

(3) of an appeal from a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims;

(4) of an appeal from a decision of:

(A) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office . . . . ;

(B) the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board . . . . ; or

(C) a district court to which a case was directed pursuant to section 145, 146, or 154(b) of title 35;

(5) of an appeal from a final decision of the United States Court of International Trade;

(6) to review the final determinations of the United States International Trade Commission;

(7) to review . . . findings of the Secretary of Commerce . . . . ;

(8) of an appeal . . . of the Plant Variety Protection Act;

(9) of an appeal . . . of the Merit Systems Protection Board . . . . ;

(10) of an appeal from a final decision of an agency board of contract appeals;

(11) of an appeal under section 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970;

(12) of an appeal under section 5 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973;

(13) of an appeal under section 506(c) fo the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978; and

(14) of an appeal under section 523 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

And that is it.  There is no mention of any antitrust act.  The Fed Circuit noted “[t]here is nothing unique to patent law about allegations of false statements.”[3]  The false statements were the real issue in the case, and not the underlying patent itself.  Thus, the case is off to the Fifth Circuit, which has jurisidiction over the Western District of Texas, from where the case originated.

[1] See Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 176-77 (1965).

[2] See Mims v. Arrow Financial Servs., LLC, 565 U.S.___, 132 S. Ct. 740, 747 (2012).

[3] Xitronix (slip op. at 5).