OCTOBER TERM, 2008
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. HIF BIO, INC.,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 07–1437. Argued February 24, 2009—Decided May 4, 2009
Respondents filed a state-court suit alleging that petitioner had vio-
lated state and federal law in connection with a patent dispute. After
removing the case to Federal District Court under 28 U. S. C.
§1441(c), which allows removal if the case includes at least one claim
over which the federal court has original jurisdiction, petitioner
moved to dismiss the suit’s only federal claim, which arose under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Agree-
ing that respondents had failed to state a RICO claim upon which re-
lief could be granted, the District Court dismissed the claim; declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law
claims under §1367(c)(3), which allows such a course if the court “has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”; and re-
manded the case to state court. The Federal Circuit dismissed peti-
tioner’s appeal, finding that the remand order could be colorably
characterized as based on a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” over
the state-law claims, §1447(c), and was therefore “not reviewable on
Held: A district court’s order remanding a case to state court after de-
clining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is
not a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for which appel-
late review is barred by §§1447(c) and (d). With re