Speedco, Incorporated v. Donald Estes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• court lacked jurisdiction where declaratory-judgment plaintiff could only be sued for breach of contract, not for patent infringement
• a plaintiff “would not need to prove as an element of his well-pled contract claim that [his] patent is valid”
• “[T]he statutory limitations on the jurisdiction of this court and the federal district courts, in conjunction with the well-pleaded complaint rule, can and do result in state courts resolving patent issues.”
• “[S]tatutory limitations on the jurisdiction of . . . the federal district courts, in conjunction with the well- pleaded complaint rule, can and do result in state courts resolving patent issues.”
• “[T]he statutory limitations on the jurisdiction of this court and the federal district courts, in conjunction with the well-pleaded complaint rule, can and do result in state courts resolving patent issues.”
• “[I]f, but for the availability of the declaratory judgment procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a defense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking.” (quoting Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 16)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).