直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

District Court’s Remand of Case Involving Patent Counterclaims to State Court Is Not Reviewable by Federal Circuit

June 07, 2017

Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Victor H. Feng, Jeff T. Watson

In Preston v. Nagel, No. 16-1524 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal of a district court’s decision to remand a case involving patent counterclaims to state court because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars review of that decision. 

Plaintiffs originally filed a complaint alleging fifteen state-law claims in Massachusetts state court. Defendants answered the complaint, filed eleven counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement of certain patents held by one of the plaintiffs, and removed the case to district court based on those patent counterclaims. The district court determined that Defendants’ counterclaims did not present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III and, therefore, remanded the case back to the state court. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which bars reviews of a district court’s order to remand a case to state court. The Defendants asked the Court to hold an exception to this rule, arguing that the America Invents Act (AIA) should override § 1447(d)’s bar because the AIA included several provisions strengthening federal court’s jurisdiction over patent claims. The Federal Circuit found these arguments unpersuasive, noting that the remand was “typical” and not “extraordinary” to warrant an exception to the well-established rule. The Court explained that Defendants could have their patent claims heard by filing a separate federal action and that any final decision in such an action would then be appealable to the Federal Circuit.

 

*Victor H. Feng is a Summer Associate at Finnegan.

Tags

America Invents Act (AIA), counterclaims, subject matter jurisdiction

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP