## Facts

- Charles R. Christianson, a former Colt employee, formed a corporation to sell M16 rifle parts in competition with Colt Industries Operating Corp., a major M16 rifle and parts manufacturer with patents and asserted trade secrets related to M16 specifications.
- Colt previously sued for patent infringement and included Christianson and his company as defendants, but later voluntarily dismissed its claims against them.
- Colt sent letters to Christianson’s customers and potential customers asserting misappropriation of Colt trade secrets and urging them not to deal with Christianson.
- Christianson sued Colt in federal district court alleging Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 violations based on Colt’s letters, litigation, and related conduct, later adding a state-law tortious interference claim.
- Colt asserted defenses based on protecting its intellectual property and counterclaimed on multiple theories tied to alleged misappropriation of M16 specifications.
- The district court granted Christianson summary judgment on liability for the antitrust and tortious interference claims.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit transferred the case to the Seventh Circuit for lack of § 1338 “arising under” patent jurisdiction; the Seventh Circuit transferred it back; the Federal Circuit then decided the merits “in the interest of justice” and reversed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Federal Circuit had appellate jurisdiction and the effect of law-of-the-case on inter-circuit transfer orders.

## Issues

1. Whether the action “arose under” federal patent law under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), thereby triggering exclusive Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
2. Whether a transferee circuit court may reconsider a transferor circuit’s jurisdictional transfer ruling, or must follow it under law-of-the-case absent clear error and manifest injustice.

## Decision

- The Court held the case did not “arise under” patent law for purposes of § 1338(a) and therefore did not fall within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1).
- The Court held law-of-the-case principles apply to inter-circuit jurisdictional transfer orders; the transferee court should not revisit the transfer ruling unless it is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.
- Because the Federal Circuit’s initial transfer decision was at least plausible, the Seventh Circuit should have accepted it, ending its jurisdictional inquiry.
- The Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s merits decision, leaving the appeal to proceed in the Seventh Circuit.

## Legal Principles

- A case “arises under” the patent laws only if (1) patent law creates the cause of action, or (2) the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of patent law as an essential element of a well-pleaded complaint.
- Patent issues raised as defenses, anticipated defenses, background facts, or one of several alternative theories do not satisfy § 1338 “arising under” jurisdiction.
- Exclusive Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1) exists only when the district court’s jurisdiction was based, in whole or in part, on § 1338.
- Law-of-the-case generally binds coordinate courts in later stages of the same case, including jurisdictional determinations accompanying transfer orders.
- A transferee court should accept a transferor court’s jurisdictional transfer ruling if it is plausible; reconsideration is limited to situations of clear error causing manifest injustice.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court limited patent “arising under” jurisdiction to well-pleaded claims that necessarily require resolving a substantial patent-law question and held that inter-circuit transfer rulings on jurisdiction ordinarily control later proceedings unless clearly erroneous and unjust, resulting in vacatur of the Federal Circuit’s merits decision.


Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988)