In a June 19, 2014 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, in Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply Inc., that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over an inventorship dispute where the contested patent has not yet been issued and remand was proper where plaintiff's claims had not yet been tried on the merits (756 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2014)). Therefore, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's decision to remand the matter to Louisiana state court.

The plaintiff (Camsoft) brought this action in 2009 in a Louisiana state court. Camsoft alleged that it had invented and developed a wireless urban surveillance system which the defendants installed. Camsoft also alleged that the system was the subject of a pending patent application, but did not allege that a patent had been issued. In its complaint, Camsoft sought judgment declaring it to be the rightful owner of the surveillance system.

The defendants removed the case to US district court under 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Camsoft opposed the removal, but amended its complaint to add federal anti-trust and racketeering claims once the case was removed. After years of stays and dispositive motions before the district court, during which time all of Camsoft's antitrust and racketeering claims were dismissed, Camsoft moved to file a fourth amended complaint. The district court sua sponte declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded the matter to state court. Several of the defendants appealed to the Federal Circuit, which transferred the appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

After determining that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court lacked removal jurisdiction because inventorship, as the parties had stipulated, served as the only possible basis for removal. Camosft's initial complaint did not allege that a patent had been issued. The court held that a federal court only has jurisdiction over inventorship claims for patents that have been issued. Since there was no patent issued in this case, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, pursuant to the US Supreme Court's decision in Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, because the plaintiff's claims had not been tried on the merits, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims when it remanded the case back to the state court (519 US 61 (1996)). Therefore, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's order to remand.