T-MOBILE US, INC. v. KAIFI LLC
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Dismissed
The 13th Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over T-Mobile’s appeal, which concerned the meaning of the phrase “survives the EPR” in a patent-settlement contract with KAIFI. Concluding that the contract dispute did not necessarily raise a substantial question of patent law under Gunn v. Minton, the court transferred the appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a state-law claim that implicates patent issues (e.g., Walker-Process antitrust or contract disputes over re-examination outcomes) ‘arises under’ the patent laws for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1338(a), giving the Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Circuit Positions
Narrow Gunn test – no § 1295/§ 1338 jurisdiction unless the patent question is necessarily raised and substantial; contractual or antitrust claims usually fall outside.
Broader Gunn test – patent question deemed substantial when the claim could effectively invalidate or render a patent unenforceable, conferring Federal Circuit jurisdiction.
Conflict Summary
The 13th Circuit applies the Gunn v. Minton four-part test strictly, holding that federal-patent jurisdiction exists only when a patent question is necessarily raised and substantial; mere potential impact on a patent’s enforceability is insufficient. The Fifth Circuit, in Xitronix II, found the same statutory language satisfied where the claim could render a still-valid patent unenforceable, viewing that as a substantial federal issue. Thus, the 5th Circuit takes a broader view of what constitutes a ‘substantial’ patent question, while the 13th Circuit takes a narrower view and often transfers such cases.