Lockwood

Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton

Bad Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 675·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 665·93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2009B204688California4,407 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

Plaintiff Lawrence B. Lockwood appeals from the orders granting special motions to strike his original complaint and first amended complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (hereafter, section 425.16), and the judgment entered in favor of defendants Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Jonathan Hangartner (collectively, Sheppard Mullin). Hangartner individually cross-appeals from the judgment denying him attorney fees arising from the special motions to strike. We conclude that Lockwood’s complaint arises under the patent laws of the United States and therefore is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts under section 1338 of title 28 of the United States Code. Therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand to the trial court with directions to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Lockwood is an inventor. In the past three decades, he has obtained a dozen patents in the fields of multimedia search systems, interactive video computing terminals, as well as e-commerce and computerized financial services. Two of those patents are involved in the present case: United States Patent No. 5,576,951 Cl (the ’951…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.