This is not a Federal law blog, and we will give only the highlights of the issue of Federal Question jurisdiction.  There are several different ways in which one may qualify for jurisdiction in Federal District Court.  One is diversity, and a second is Federal Question.  This intersects with legal malpractice when a legal malpractice case is started or removed to District Court on the basis that the underlying representation was in a subject matter unique to Federal and not State law.  Examples?  Patent law and Federal Trademark law. 

Here is a blurb from Rita Siamas of McDermott, Will and Emery:

"a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment win for Duane Morris, LLP and one of its partners, Richard Redano, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the state law malpractice claim because it did not arise under federal trademark law. Singh v. Duane Morris, Case No. 07-20321 (5th Cir., July 30, 2008) (Smith, J.).

The underlying trademark infringement action involved a dispute over the use of the name “Testmaster” between two companies offering Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) preparation services. A Texas-based company, Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., brought a federal trademark infringement action against Singh’s California-based company TestMasters. After a five-day trial, a jury determined that Singh’s “TestMasters” mark had acquired secondary meaning. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Singh had presented insufficient evidence to establish secondary meaning. (See IP Update, Vol. 11, No. 5, Three Strikes at Secondary Meaning—And You’re Out !)"