Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Statutory Construction Blog advises us that the Supreme Court in Grable expanded the interpretation of "arising under" in terms of the "substantial federal question" doctrine under 28 U.S.C. 1331: a claim, created by state law, can nonetheless "arise under" federal law if it involves a substantial federal question. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that legal malpractice cases based upon patent litigation or patent prosecution 'arose under' federal law, but the Fifth Circuit has just held that a claim that a lawyer botched a trademark action (under federal law) did not present a substantial federal question. Click here to read more. You might find this useful for a legal writing or moot court problem.