Marotta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court Filings | Downloads: 135 | Comments: 0 | Views: 1217
of 5
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-01306-JBM-JAG: Marotta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the Hon. Joe Billy McDade presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l4ip for more info.

Comments

Content

Friday, 12 August, 2011 01:31:17 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION DARIO A. MAROTTA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

E-FILED

Case No. __________ McLean County Case No. 11-L-118

STATE FARM’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendant STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, by its attorney J. Reed Roesler of Davis & Campbell L.L.C., removes this action from the Circuit Court of McLean County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, because Plaintiff alleges as one of his core claims that State Farm failed to compensate him for an “invention” he claims to have developed, a claim which is preempted by federal patent law over which this court has original jurisdiction. In support of removal, State Farm states: 1. This is a civil action filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, McLean County,

Illinois, on June 28, 2011, titled Marotta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and assigned Case No. 11-L-118. 2. 3. State Farm was served with a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint on July 14, 2011. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), State Farm has attached a copy of all process,

pleadings and orders served upon it thus far in the litigation. 4. An action originally filed in state court may be removed to federal district court

when the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

1

“Federal question jurisdiction exists so long as ‘it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims, or that one or the other claim is “really” one of federal law.’” Harrell v. Turner, No. 94-2280, 1995 WL 399013, at *1 (7th Cir. July 7, 1995) (affirming removal) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. V. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)). 5. This case is removable because Count I of the Complaint alleges that State Farm

failed to compensate Plaintiff, under a quantum meruit theory of liability, for an “invention” he claims to have developed. See Count I, paragraph 15, where Plaintiff claims: Plaintiff, Dario A. Marotta, is entitled to just compensation for the invention of his program, which has saved Defendant millions of dollars in less than two years and which, absent such compensation, would unjustly enrich Defendant. 6. Viewed for what it is, Count I is actually a claim for violation of the Plaintiff’s

alleged rights under federal patent law, over which this court has original jurisdiction. Courts have recognized that state-law claims for “patent-like protection” are preempted by federal patent law when they conflict with the balance struck by Congress in the federal patent statute between the encouragement of invention and free competition in unpatented ideas. See, e.g., Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 156, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989) (“States may not offer patent-like protection to intellectual creations which would otherwise remain unprotected as a matter of federal law.”) and its progeny, including Tavory v. NTP, Inc., 297 F. App'x. 976, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“An unjust enrichment claim is preempted by federal patent law when it conflicts with ‘the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’”) and Powell v. Home Depot, Case No. 08-cv-80435, 2010 WL 375796 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (“If a plaintiff bases its tort action on conduct that is protected

2

or governed by federal patent law, then the plaintiff may not invoke the state law remedy, which must be preempted for conflict with federal patent law.”). 7. Whether Plaintiff’s alleged invention is patentable and subject to protections and

remedies afforded by federal patent law, or not patentable and deemed unworthy of intellectual protections and remedies, is a question of federal law. See Bonito, 489 U.S. at 156; Tavory, 297 Fed.Appx. at 983-84. As such, adjudication of Plaintiff’s state-law unjust enrichment claim, without making these determinations, would conflict with the balance struck by Congress in the federal patent statute between the encouragement of invention and free competition in unpatented ideas. 8. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff’s alleged invention may be patentable and

entitled to protection, Plaintiff will need to establish “inventorship.” See Tavory, 297 Fed.Appx. at 979. Inventorship is a field that is governed exclusively by federal patent law. Powell, 2010 WL 375796 at *4 (federal patent law “contains explicit and detailed standards for inventorship”). Plaintiff attempts to establish inventorship in paragraph 5 of Count I, where he states: Plaintiff, David A. Marotta, worked on writing computer code to improve Defendant’s Quality Contact Forms on his own time, at his home, using his own computer and any other materials that he might have needed, all of which was completely outside of his job with Defendant as a sales representative. Because Plaintiff must establish inventorship for the relief requested in his Complaint, his claim is preempted by federal patent law. 9. Plaintiff’s claim that State Farm failed to compensate him for an “invention”

cannot be recast as a claim of unjust enrichment in order to defeat federal court jurisdiction. See Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 954 F.2d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted), where the

3

court affirmed removal where the plaintiff had artfully pled a state-law claim that implicated federal law, stating: “Although the plaintiff is generally considered the ‘master of his complaint,’ this principle is not without limitation. An independent corollary to the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule’ is the ‘artful pleading doctrine.’ A plaintiff may not frame his action under state law and omit federal questions that are essential to recovery. Therefore, a federal court may, in some situations, look beyond the face of the complaint to determine whether a plaintiff has artfully pleaded his suit so as to couch a federal claim in terms of state law. In these cases, we will conclude that a plaintiff’s claim actually arose under federal law and is therefore removable.” Also see Harrell, 1995 WL 399013 at *1 (“we must be mindful that a plaintiff may not dodge federal court, and so engage in dreaded forum shopping, by artful pleading”). But see Mannsfeld v. Evonik Degussa Corporation, 2011 WL 53098 (remanding unjust enrichment claim to state court upon failed showing of federal question jurisdiction). 10. In view of the foregoing, this Court has original jurisdiction over Count I of the

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and removal of this case is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count

II of the Complaint because that claim forms part of the same case or controversy as Count I, over which this Court has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, State Farm requests that this action be removed from McLean County Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. August 12, 2011 By: /s/ J. Reed Roesler J. Reed Roesler Davis & Campbell L.L.C. 401 Main Street, Suite 1600 Peoria, IL 61602-1241 Tele: (309) 673-1681 [email protected] 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION DARIO A. MAROTTA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

Case No. __________ McLean County Case No. 11-L-118

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 12, 2011, the foregoing Notice of Removal was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, and that I have mailed by United States Postal Service a copy of the same to the following non-CM/ECF participant: Steven P. Glancey Attorney for Plaintiff Brown & Glancey, LLC 416 Main St., Suite 1300 Peoria, IL 61602

DAVIS & CAMPBELL L.L.C.

/s/ J. Reed Roesler J. Reed Roesler Davis & Campbell L.L.C. 401 Main Street, Suite 1600 Peoria, IL 61602-1241 Tele: (309) 673-1681 Fax: (309) 673-1690 [email protected]
00070564.DOC

5

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close