reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.’ ” Matera v. Native Eyewear, Inc., 355 F.Supp.2d 680, 681 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (quoting Fisher v. Hopkins, No. 02 Civ. 7077, 2003 WL 102845, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2003)). B. Pendent Venue In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud/fraudulent inducement. Although all three of these causes of action are grounded in state law, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) because the legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims turn on a question of federal patent law — i.e., whether the Hannon Applications are anticipated by the Fire Patent or other prior art. See Immunocept, LLC v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 504 F.3d 1281, 1284-86 (Fed.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The fraud claims relate to the impropriety of
holding that the first grable requirement was met where the plaintiff in order to prevail on his legal malpractice claim had to show that he would have prevailed on his claim under federal patent law holding that  1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs 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 wellpleaded claims holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b holding that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1338a over a legal malpractice claim that was based upon an alleged attorney error in drafting a patent claim in a manner that narrowed the scope of the patent holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement