28 U.S.C. § 1338 — Patents, plant variety protection, copy-

Page 371 TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE § 1338 HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(27), (28) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24(27), (28), 207, 36 Stat. 1091, 1148; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 219). Words ‘‘Except as otherwise provided by enactment of Congress’’ were inserted because of certain similar cases of which the courts of appeals are given jurisdic- tion. (See, for example, section 21 of title 15, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Commerce and Trade.) Words ‘‘any civil action’’ were substituted for ‘‘all cases’’ and ‘‘cases’’ in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Changes were made in phraseology. Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 1995—Pub. L. 104–88 substituted ‘‘Surface Transpor- tation Board’s’’ for ‘‘Interstate Commerce Commis- sion’s’’ in section catchline and ‘‘Surface Transpor- tation Board’’ for ‘‘Interstate Commerce Commission’’ wherever appearing in text. 1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted ‘‘United States Court of Federal Claims’’ for ‘‘United States Claims Court’’. 1982—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted ‘‘United States Claims Court’’ for ‘‘Court of Claims’’. 1975—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–584 substituted provi- sions that the district courts shall have jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce, in whole or in part, orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and to enjoin or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the payment of money or the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, for provisions that the district courts shall have jurisdic- tion of civil actions to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Inter- state Commerce Commission. 1964—Pub. L. 88–513 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c). Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1995 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transpor- tation. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1992 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1982 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1975 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 93–584 not applicable to ac- tions commenced on or before last day of first month beginning after Jan. 2, 1975, and actions to enjoin or suspend orders of Interstate Commerce Commission which are pending when this amendment becomes effec- tive shall not be affected thereby, but shall proceed to final disposition under the law existing on the date they were commenced, see section 10 of Pub. L. 93–584, set out as a note under section 2321 of this title. § 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs (a) The district courts shall have original ju- risdiction of any civil action or proceeding aris- ing under any Act of Congress regulating com- merce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies: Provided, however, That the district courts shall have original ju- risdiction of an action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading ex- ceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. (b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where a plaintiff who files the case under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or coun- terclaim to which the defendant may be ad- judged to be entitled, and exclusive of any inter- est and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff. (c) The district courts shall not have jurisdic- tion under this section of any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Inter- national Trade under chapter 95 of this title. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 95–486, § 9(a), Oct. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 1633; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 505, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1743; Pub. L. 97–449, § 5(f), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2442; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, § 305(a)(3), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 944.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(8), (23) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, pars. 8, 23, 36 Stat. 1092, 1093; Oct. 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 Stat. 219). Words ‘‘civil action’’ were substituted for ‘‘suits’’, in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Changes were made in phraseology. Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 1995—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 104–88 substituted ‘‘11706 or 14706’’ for ‘‘11707’’. 1983—Pub. L. 97–449 substituted ‘‘section 11707 of title 49’’ for ‘‘section 20(11) of part I of the Interstate Com- merce Act (49 U.S.C. 20(11)) or section 219 of part II of such Act (49 U.S.C. 319)’’ wherever appearing. 1980—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–417 added subsec. (c). 1978—Pub. L. 95–486 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted proviso giving the district courts original jurisdiction of actions brought under sections 20(11) and 219 of the Interstate Commerce Act when the amounts in controversy for each receipt exceed $10,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and added subsec. (b). Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1995 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of Title 49, Transpor- tation. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1980 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 96–417 effective Nov. 1, 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on or commenced on or after such date, see section 701(a) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as a note under section 251 of this title. § 1338. Patents, plant variety protection, copy- rights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition (a) The district courts shall have original ju- risdiction of any civil action arising under any Page 372 TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE § 1339 Act of Congress relating to patents, plant vari- ety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Con- gress relating to patents, plant variety protec- tion, or copyrights. For purposes of this sub- section, the term ‘‘State’’ includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (b) The district courts shall have original ju- risdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a sub- stantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety protection or trademark laws. (c) Subsections (a) and (b) apply to exclusive rights in mask works under chapter 9 of title 17, and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of title 17, to the same extent as such sub- sections apply to copyrights. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 91–577, title III, § 143(b), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1559; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1020(a)(4), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4671; Pub. L. 105–304, title V, § 503(b)(1), (2)(A), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2917; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title III, § 3009(1)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–551; Pub. L. 112–29, § 19(a), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 331.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 41(7) and 371(5) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24, par. 7, 256, par. 5, 36 Stat. 1092, 1160). Section consolidates section 41(7) with section 371 (5) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in phraseology. Words ‘‘of any civil action’’ were substituted for ‘‘all suits at law or in equity’’ and ‘‘cases’’ to conform sec- tion to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Word ‘‘patents’’ was substituted for ‘‘patent-right’’ in said section 371 (Fifth) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Similar provisions respecting suits cognizable in dis- trict courts, including those of territories and posses- sions. (See section 34 of title 17, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Copy- rights.) Subsection (b) is added and is intended to avoid ‘‘piecemeal’’ litigation to enforce common-law and statutory copyright, patent, and trade-mark rights by specifically permitting such enforcement in a single civil action in the district court. While this is the rule under Federal decisions, this section would enact it as statutory authority. The problem is discussed at length in Hurn v. Oursler (1933, 53 S.Ct. 586, 289 U.S. 238, 77 L.Ed. 1148) and in Musher Foundation v. Alba Trading Co. (C.C.A. 1942, 127 F.2d 9) (majority and dissenting opin- ions). Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–29 substituted ‘‘No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘State’ includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Com- monwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Is- lands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mar- iana Islands.’’ for ‘‘Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety pro- tection and copyright cases.’’ 1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted ‘‘trademarks’’ for ‘‘trade-marks’’ in section catchline and subsec. (a) and substituted ‘‘trademark’’ for ‘‘trade-mark’’ in subsec. (b). 1998—Pub. L. 105–304, § 503(b)(2)(A), inserted ‘‘de- signs,’’ after ‘‘mask works,’’ in section catchline. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–304, § 503(b)(1), inserted ‘‘, and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of title 17,’’ after ‘‘title 17’’. 1988—Pub. L. 100–702, § 1020(a)(4)(B), amended section catchline generally, inserting ‘‘mask works,’’ after ‘‘copyrights,’’. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–702, § 1020(a)(4)(A), added sub- sec. (c). 1970—Pub. L. 91–577 inserted references to ‘‘plant va- riety protection’’ in section catchline and in subsecs. (a) and (b). Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2011 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Sept. 16, 2011, see section 19(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 1295 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1970 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 91–577 effective Dec. 24, 1970, see section 141 of Pub. L. 91–577, set out as an Effective Date note under section 2321 of Title 7, Agriculture. § 1339. Postal matters The district courts shall have original juris- diction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to the postal service. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 932.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(6) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, par. 6, 36 Stat. 1092). Changes were made in phraseology. § 1340. Internal revenue; customs duties The district courts shall have original juris- diction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue, or revenue from imports or tonnage except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of Inter- national Trade. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 932; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 501(21), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1742.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(5) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, par. 5, 36 Stat. 1092; Mar. 2, 1929, ch. 488, § 1, 45 Stat. 1475). Words ‘‘Customs Court’’ were substituted for ‘‘Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.’’ Section 41(5) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is based on the Judicial Code of 1911. At that time the only court, other than the district courts, having jurisdiction of customs cases, was the Court of Customs Appeals which became the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in 1929. The Customs Court was created in 1926 as a court of original jurisdic- tion over customs cases. (See reviser’s note preceding section 251 of this title.) Words ‘‘any civil action’’ were substituted for ‘‘all cases’’ in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Changes were made in phraseology. Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 1980—Pub. L. 96–417 redesignated the Customs Court as the Court of International Trade.