This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2005, HIF (P) filed a complaint against D alleging that D had violated state and federal law in connection with a patent dispute. D removed the case to District Court under § 1441(c). D then filed a motion to dismiss the only federal claim in the lawsuit, which arose under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, for failure to adequately allege a pattern of racketeering. The Court dismissed the claim pursuant to 12(b)(6). It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3). The District Court then remanded the case to state court. P appealed arguing that the District Court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because they implicate federal patent-law rights. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the remand order could 'be colorably characterized as a remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction' and, therefore, could not be reviewed under §§ 1447(c) and (d), which provide that 'lack of subject matter jurisdiction' are 'not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.' D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.