28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) creates exclusive federal jurisdiction for patent, trademark and copyright cases ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases."). On October 15, 2007, the Federal Circuit held as a matter of first impression in Air Measurement Techs., Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24098 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15,2007), that 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over a state law claim of legal malpractice that requires resolution of substantial issues of patent law (the complaint alleged errors by counsel in patent prosecution and patent litigation, and required resolution of an infringement issue). In 1988, in Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988), the Supreme Court held that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction under § 1338 over any case "in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either [1] that federal patent law creates the cause of action or [2] that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims." By definition, prong [1] did not apply in Air Management. In an analysis reminiscent of Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), the Federal Circuit upheld jurisdiction under prong [2], reasoning that the well-pleaded complaint required resolution of substantial issues of patent law ‛without consideration of allegations that may be made in anticipation or avoidance of [defendant’s] defenses and without contemplation of [defendant’s] counterclaims.“ Citing Grable, the Court concluded that: ‛[W]e would consider it illogical for the Western District of Texas to have jurisdiction under § 1338 to hear the underlying infringement suit and for us then to determine that the same court does not have jurisdiction under § 1338 to hear the same substantial patent question in the ‘case within a case’ context of a state malpractice claim.“