Karl-Erbo Graf von Kageneck v. Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karl-Erbo Graf von Kageneck v. Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane

301 A.D.2d 363, 752 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 363 (Karl-Erbo Graf von Kageneck v. Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karl-Erbo Graf von Kageneck v. Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane, 301 A.D.2d 363, 752 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered February 1, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, defendants’ motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Where resolution of plaintiffs’ allegations of malpractice revolves around analysis and application of patent law, subject matter jurisdiction lies exclusively in the federal courts (see 28 USC § 1338 [a]; see also Christianson v Colt Indus., 486 US 800, 808-809; U.S. Valves, Inc. v Dray, 212 F3d 1368; Franchi v Manbeck, 947 F2d 631). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, this is not a case of mere negligence in preparing, filing and prosecuting the patent application. There is no claim that the [364]*364application was in any way misfiled or technically defective. Rather, the complaint goes to the heart of the patent and defendants’ negligence in analyzing it and applying patent law. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered February 1, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, defendants’ motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Where resolution of plaintiffs’ allegations of malpractice revolves around analysis and application of patent law, subject matter jurisdiction lies exclusively in the federal courts (see 28 USC § 1338 [a]; see also Christianson v Colt Indus., 486 US 800, 808-809; U.S. Valves, Inc. v Dray, 212 F3d 1368; Franchi v Manbeck, 947 F2d 631). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, this is not a case of mere negligence in preparing, filing and prosecuting the patent application. There is no claim that the [364]*364application was in any way misfiled or technically defective. Rather, the complaint goes to the heart of the patent and defendants’ negligence in analyzing it and applying patent law. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 363, 752 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karl-erbo-graf-von-kageneck-v-cohen-pontani-lieberman-pavane-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack