Dennis wrote up NeuroRepair v. Nath Law Group, here. The case to me puts another nail (probably not the last) in the coffin of the “substantial federal question” basis for asserting subject matter jurisdiction in cases based upon malpractice during patent prosecution or litigation. Boiled down, because state law creates a malpractice claim, the fact that patent law will be an issue is not enough to convert a state law claim into one arising under federal law.
This is good, and bad. The good is that I’ve seen several of these cases bouncing around for years between state and federal systems. Having jurisdictional certainty is a good thing. If someone files in state court, the case likely should remain there; if in federal court, it likely should be dismissed (absent independent subject matter jurisdictional grounds, obviously).
The bad news is that state judges, with no experience with patent law, are going to be deciding patent law issues. This creates a little bit of the wild west, potentially. I suspect overall that defense counsel would rather be in federal court, but that probably varies.