FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 85
Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter85 — DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 1338.
Text
(a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
(b)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety prote
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Las Vegas Sports News, L.L.C., D/B/A Las Vegas Sporting News
212 F.3d 157 (Third Circuit, 2000)
Star Fruits s.n.c. v. United States
393 F.3d 1277 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Ole K. Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc. And Motorola Lighting, Inc.
203 F.3d 782 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc.
153 F.3d 1318 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Kamdem-Ouaffo v. PepsiCo, Inc.
160 F. Supp. 3d 553 (S.D. New York, 2016)
Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
427 F.3d 958 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Royal Industries, a Corporation v. St. Regis Paper Company, a Corporation
420 F.2d 449 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
USPPS, LTD. v. Avery Dennison Corp.
676 F.3d 1341 (Federal Circuit, 2012)
Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
423 F.3d 1260 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Bae Systems Aircraft Controls Inc. v. Eclipse Aviation Corp.
224 F.R.D. 581 (D. Delaware, 2004)
Murray v. Gelderman
566 F.2d 1307 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Contec Corp.
220 F.R.D. 415 (D. Delaware, 2004)
Emerson Elec. Co. v. Emerson Quiet Kool Corp.
577 F. Supp. 668 (E.D. Missouri, 1983)
INVISTA North America S.à.r.l. v. M & G USA Corp.
951 F. Supp. 2d 626 (D. Delaware, 2013)
Midlothian Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Pamlab, L.L.C.
509 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (M.D. Alabama, 2007)
Jockey Club, Inc. v. Jockey Club of Las Vegas, Inc.
595 F.2d 1167 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Manufacturing Research Corporation v. Graybar Electric Company
679 F.2d 1355 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
Rains v. Criterion Systems
80 F.3d 339 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
The Dow Chemical Company v. Exxon Corporation and Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants
144 F.3d 1478 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Avco Manufacturing Corp.
126 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Illinois, 1954)
Source Credit
History
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §143(b), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1559; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1020(a)(4), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4671; Pub. L. 105–304, title V, §503(b)(1), (2)(A), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2917; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title III, §3009(1)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–551; Pub. L. 112–29, §19(a), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 331.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§41(7) and 371(5) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§24, par. 7, 256, par. 5, 36 Stat. 1092, 1160).
Section consolidates section 41(7) with section 371 (5) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in phraseology.
Words "of any civil action" were substituted for "all suits at law or in equity" and "cases" to conform section to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Word "patents" was substituted for "patent-right" in said section 371 (Fifth) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Similar provisions respecting suits cognizable in district courts, including those of territories and possessions. (See section 34 of title 17, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Copyrights.)
Subsection (b) is added and is intended to avoid "piecemeal" litigation to enforce common-law and statutory copyright, patent, and trade-mark rights by specifically permitting such enforcement in a single civil action in the district court. While this is the rule under Federal decisions, this section would enact it as statutory authority. The problem is discussed at length in Hurn v. Oursler (1933, 53 S.Ct. 586, 289 U.S. 238, 77 L.Ed. 1148) and in Musher Foundation v. Alba Trading Co. (C.C.A. 1942, 127 F.2d 9) (majority and dissenting opinions).
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–29 substituted "No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'State' includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." for "Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases."
1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "trademarks" for "trade-marks" in section catchline and subsec. (a) and substituted "trademark" for "trade-mark" in subsec. (b).
1998—Pub. L. 105–304, §503(b)(2)(A), inserted "designs," after "mask works," in section catchline.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–304, §503(b)(1), inserted ", and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of title 17," after "title 17".
1988—Pub. L. 100–702, §1020(a)(4)(B), amended section catchline generally, inserting "mask works," after "copyrights,".
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–702, §1020(a)(4)(A), added subsec. (c).
1970—Pub. L. 91–577 inserted references to "plant variety protection" in section catchline and in subsecs. (a) and (b).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Sept. 16, 2011, see section 19(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 1295 of this title.
Effective Date of 1970 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 91–577 effective Dec. 24, 1970, see section 141 of Pub. L. 91–577, set out as an Effective Date note under section 2321 of Title 7, Agriculture.
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§41(7) and 371(5) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§24, par. 7, 256, par. 5, 36 Stat. 1092, 1160).
Section consolidates section 41(7) with section 371 (5) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in phraseology.
Words "of any civil action" were substituted for "all suits at law or in equity" and "cases" to conform section to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Word "patents" was substituted for "patent-right" in said section 371 (Fifth) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Similar provisions respecting suits cognizable in district courts, including those of territories and possessions. (See section 34 of title 17, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Copyrights.)
Subsection (b) is added and is intended to avoid "piecemeal" litigation to enforce common-law and statutory copyright, patent, and trade-mark rights by specifically permitting such enforcement in a single civil action in the district court. While this is the rule under Federal decisions, this section would enact it as statutory authority. The problem is discussed at length in Hurn v. Oursler (1933, 53 S.Ct. 586, 289 U.S. 238, 77 L.Ed. 1148) and in Musher Foundation v. Alba Trading Co. (C.C.A. 1942, 127 F.2d 9) (majority and dissenting opinions).
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–29 substituted "No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'State' includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." for "Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases."
1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "trademarks" for "trade-marks" in section catchline and subsec. (a) and substituted "trademark" for "trade-mark" in subsec. (b).
1998—Pub. L. 105–304, §503(b)(2)(A), inserted "designs," after "mask works," in section catchline.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–304, §503(b)(1), inserted ", and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of title 17," after "title 17".
1988—Pub. L. 100–702, §1020(a)(4)(B), amended section catchline generally, inserting "mask works," after "copyrights,".
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–702, §1020(a)(4)(A), added subsec. (c).
1970—Pub. L. 91–577 inserted references to "plant variety protection" in section catchline and in subsecs. (a) and (b).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Sept. 16, 2011, see section 19(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 1295 of this title.
Effective Date of 1970 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 91–577 effective Dec. 24, 1970, see section 141 of Pub. L. 91–577, set out as an Effective Date note under section 2321 of Title 7, Agriculture.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 1338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/1338.