Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (5/5 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/5 playlist item notes are private)
|2||Show/Hide More||Introduction to Subject Matter Jurisdiction|
|3||Show/Hide More||Diversity Jurisdiction|
|4.1||Show/Hide More||The Theory and the Constitutional Grant|
|4.1.3||Show/Hide More||Osborn v. Bank of United States [NOTE DIRECTIONS]|
NOTE: This case is complicated. I have endeavored to edit it such that it most closely resembles contemporary English but in some instances that was not possible. Have patience when reading it and do not spend more than 20 minutes on it.
SUMMARY OF FACTS: The Bank of the United States brought suit against the state auditor of Ohio (Osborn) in federal court seeking an injunction to stop Ohio from collecting a tax the Bank believed was unconstitutional. Historically, the States opposed the Bank of the United States and often levied punitive taxes against it. Even though the court granted the Bank a temporary injunction, the state auditor forcibly entered the bank and took the money he claimed state was owed. The court ordered the state officials to return the money, who in response argued that the federal courts had no subject matter jurisdiction.
|4.2||Show/Hide More||The Statutory Grant|
|4.3||Show/Hide More||The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule|
|4.3.3||Show/Hide More||Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. [OPTIONAL AS SUMMARIZED IN CHEAT SHEAT]|
|4.3.4||Show/Hide More||Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. [OPTIONAL AS SUMMARIZED IN CHEAT SHEAT]|
|4.3.5||Show/Hide More||Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum Inc. [OPTIONAL AS SUMMARIZED IN CHEAT SHEAT]|
|4.4||Show/Hide More||The Meaning of "arising under"|
|4.4.2||Show/Hide More||Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson [NOTE DIRECTIONS]|
|4.4.3||Show/Hide More||Gunn v. Minton [NOTE DIRECTIONS]|
Summary/Edited Facts of Case:
Vernon Minton developed a computer program (“TEXCEN”) for securities trading in the early 1990s. He leased it in 1995 to a securities brokerage. He applied to patent TEXCEN a little more than a year later, and the patent was issued in 2000.
Minton then sued NASDAQ for patent infringement, represented by Mr. Gunn. NASDAQ obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the patent was invalid; an inventor is not entitled to a patent if “the invention was . . . on sale . . . more than one year prior to the date of the application,” and Minton had leased TEXCEN to Stark more than one year prior to filing his patent application. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Minton then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing for the first time that the lease agreement was part of ongoing testing of TEXCEN and therefore fell within the “experimental use” exception to the [one year rule]. The District Court denied the motion on the grounds that the experimental use argument was waived, Minton appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
|4.4.4||Show/Hide More||Additional, OPTIONAL Cases [Read if interested]|
|5||Show/Hide More||Supplemental Jurisdiction|
|5.1.2||Show/Hide More||A Note on Pendent and Ancillary Jurisdiction Following Gibbs, from Friedenthal, Miller, et al (10th ed. 2012) [NOTE DIRECTIONS]|
|5.2||Show/Hide More||The Current State of the Law|
December 05, 2014
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.