## Facts

- Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. manufactured fans and heaters with a spiral grill design and claimed intellectual-property protection in that design.
- In earlier litigation involving Vornado and another competitor, a federal appellate court rejected Vornado’s attempt to protect the spiral grill design as trade dress because the design was functional.
- Despite that earlier ruling, Vornado later accused Holmes Group, Inc. (a competing fan and heater manufacturer) of infringing Vornado’s trade dress and pursued enforcement efforts, including proceedings before the International Trade Commission.
- Holmes filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe any protectable trade dress and seeking an injunction barring Vornado from asserting trade-dress claims based on the spiral grill design.
- Vornado answered and asserted a compulsory counterclaim alleging that Holmes infringed Vornado’s utility patents covering aspects of its products.
- The district court entered judgment for Holmes on the trade-dress dispute, granting declaratory and injunctive relief, and stayed litigation of the patent counterclaim.
- Vornado appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Holmes objected, arguing the Federal Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction because Holmes’s complaint raised only trade-dress issues, not patent claims.
- The Federal Circuit accepted jurisdiction on the theory that Vornado’s patent counterclaim supplied the necessary patent-law basis, then vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a patent counterclaim can route an appeal to the Federal Circuit when the complaint itself contains no patent-law claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint asserts no claim arising under patent law, but the defendant asserts a patent-infringement counterclaim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction because the case did not arise under patent law on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.
- The Court ruled that a patent counterclaim—even a compulsory counterclaim—cannot supply “arising under” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and therefore cannot trigger Federal Circuit jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1).
- The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s jurisdictional ruling and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the conclusion that the Federal Circuit was not the proper appellate forum.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) depends on whether the district court’s jurisdiction was based, in whole or in part, on 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (civil actions “arising under” federal patent law).
- The “arising under” test for § 1338(a) follows the same well-pleaded-complaint rule applied to § 1331: jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff’s statement of its own claim in the complaint, not by defenses or counterclaims.
- A counterclaim alleging patent infringement does not create § 1338(a) jurisdiction and cannot, by itself, place an appeal within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
- Allowing counterclaims to control “arising under” jurisdiction would expand federal jurisdiction and removability and would shift control over forum selection away from plaintiffs, contrary to the well-pleaded-complaint rule’s design.
- Policy arguments favoring nationwide uniformity in patent law cannot override the statutory text; any expansion of Federal Circuit jurisdiction based on counterclaims is for Congress to provide by statute.

## Conclusion

Holmes Group holds that a patent-infringement counterclaim cannot transform a non-patent complaint into a case “arising under” patent law for purposes of § 1338(a), and therefore cannot route an appeal to the Federal Circuit under § 1295(a)(1); appellate jurisdiction must be determined from the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.


Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002).