Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Solutia, Inc.

310 F. App'x 594
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 9, 2009
Docket03-1667, 03-1854
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 310 F. App'x 594 (Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Solutia, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Solutia, Inc., 310 F. App'x 594 (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

Vacated and remanded by unpublished .PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Burlington Industries, Inc., noted these appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment for Solutia, Inc., on Burlington’s complaint. Solutia has moved to transfer the appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the *595 Federal Circuit, asserting that this is a patent case and federal jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (2006).

Our review of the motion, the response, and the parties’ materials submitted in support of their positions leads us to conclude that Burlington’s complaint asserted claims based on breach of the Consent Decree/License Agreement, rather than on infringement of Burlington’s patents. Because none of the claims asserted in the complaint “aris[e] under” federal patent law or require the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, we deny the motion to transfer these appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808-10, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988). In light of our determination that Burlington’s complaint did not arise under federal patent law, we further find that the district court did not properly exercise § 1338 jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand the case back to state court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Flatspikes, LLC v. Softspikes, LLC
913 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Maryland, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
310 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burlington-industries-inc-v-solutia-inc-ca4-2009.