Opinion
1960
January 7, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered February 1, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, defendants' motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.
James G. McCarney, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Charles D. Hellman, for defendants-appellants.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Marlow, JJ.
Where resolution of plaintiffs' allegations of malpractice revolve around analysis and application of patent law, subject matter jurisdiction lies exclusively in the federal courts (see 28 U.S.C. § 1338[a]; see also Christianson v. Colt Industries, 486 U.S. 800, 808-809; U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray, 212 F.3d 1368; Franchi v. Manbeck, 947 F.2d 631). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, this is not a case of mere negligence in preparing, filing and prosecuting the patent application. There is no claim that the application was in any way misfiled or technically defective. Rather, the complaint goes to the heart of the patent and defendants' negligence in analyzing it and applying patent law.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.