U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 89— DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 1454

Patent, plant variety protection, and copyright cases

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—A civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights may be removed to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action is pending.(b)Special Rules.—The removal of an action under this section shall be made in accordance with section 1446, except that if the removal is based solely on this section—(1) the action may be removed by any party; and(2) the time limitations contained in section 1446(b) may be extended at any time for cause shown.(c)Clarification of Jurisdiction in Certain Cases.—The court to which a civil action is removed under this section is not precluded from hearing and determining any claim in the civil action because the State court from which the civil action is removed did not have jurisdiction over that claim.(d)Remand.—If a civil action is removed solely under this section, the district court—(1) shall remand all claims that are neither a basis for removal under subsection (a) nor within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court under any Act of Congress; and(2) may, under the circumstances specified in section 1367(c), remand any claims within the supplemental jurisdiction of the district court under section 1367.(Added Pub. L. 112–29, § 19(c)(1), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 332.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Sept. 16, 2011, see section 19(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment note under section 1295 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Sleppin v. Thinkscan.com, LLC, 55 F. Supp. 3d 366 (E.D.N.Y 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sleppin v. Thinkscan.com, LLC, 55 F. Supp. 3d 366 (E.D.N.Y 2014). · cites it 10× “) However, the Court finds that the Defendants’ counterclaim do not arise under the Copyright Act and therefore do not confer federal jurisdiction on this Court.”
Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019). “28 U.S.C. §§ 1454 (a), (b)(1). The Bankruptcy Code likewise allows "[a] party" to remove in cases related to bankruptcy.”
State of Vermont v. Mphj Tech. Investments, 803 F.3d 635 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “§ 1443 (“civil rights removal statute”), and 28 U.S.C. § 1454 (“patent removal statute”).”
Andrews v. Daughtry, 994 F. Supp. 2d 728 (M.D.N.C. 2014). · cites it 6× “He removed the action a second time to this court, premising jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1454 and the presence of a federal question in the counterclaims.”
Badhwa v. Veritec, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 890 (D. Me. 2018). · cites it 7× “Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1454 , a third-party defendant may remove an action to federal court based upon its own declaratory judgment action, if that action arises under the patent or copyright laws.”
Acorne Prods., LLC v. Tjeknavorian, 33 F. Supp. 3d 175 (E.D.N.Y 2014). · cites it 5× “In 2011, however, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), which permits “any party [who] asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to .”
Thomas E. Reynolds v. Behrman Capital IV L.P., 988 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2021). “” 3 Following the 2002 amendments to § 1441, several of our sister circuits have held that the “under this section” language in the new § 1441(f) abrogates the 3 Congress has also abrogated the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction in “patent, plant variety protection, and…”
Accutrax, LLC v. Kildevaeld, 140 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 7× “It contends that the removal of this action to federal court was improper because-it was removed after the expiration of the thirty-day deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1454 . Kildevaeld contends that (1) the removal was timely because the thirty-day window began on the-day when he…”
Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer Am. Corp., 955 F.3d 927 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 1441 providing removal of an action which the district court would have original jurisdiction and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1454 providing removal of an action where a party asserts a patent counterclaim.”
Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC, 112 F. Supp. 3d 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 3× “Removal On March 6, 2015, Duro removed this litigation to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1454 , which provides that “[a] civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents- .”
TransCardiac Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yoganathan, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 6× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1454 (a). However, if a civil action is removed solely under § 1454, as is the case here, the Court “shall” remand all claims that are not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the Court, 28 U.”
Preston v. Nagel, 857 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 1441 , the general removal statute, and 28 U.S.C. § 1454 , the patent removal statute.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1454(a) — 1 case
Bonnafant v. Chico's FAS, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (M.D. Fla. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.