In an October 27, 2010, decision by Justice Driscoll in connection with plaintiff-consultant’s action against defendant-manufacturer for breach of contract, and on defendant’s motion to dismiss brought on by order to show cause on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case, the court denied defendant’s order to show cause, finding that the federal courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiff was contractually entitled to certain patent royalties because plaintiff’s breach-of-contract action did not “arise under” the federal patent laws even though the validity of a patent was an issue in the case. The court concluded that because plaintiff’s action primarily involved interpretation of a contract, “and only peripherally involved questions concerning patents,” it merely raised “questions” arising under the patent laws and did not constitute a “case” arising under those laws.