Kidde, Inc., and E.F. Bavis & Associates, Inc., both manufacture automatic equipment used by banks at drive-in windows. Bavis, which holds a patent on its equipment, placed in a national banking journal an advertisement that, in effect, threatened suit for contributory infringement against any bank buying a machine that might infringe on Bavis’s patent. Kidde then brought this suit for declaratory and in-junctive relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, alleging that the advertisement was intended by Bavis to be understood as a reference to Kidde’s machine, that Bavis’s patent is invalid or not infringed, and that Bavis’s actions amounted to unfair competition and intentional interference with busi *1086 ness relationships. Subject-matter jurisdiction was based in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (patent cases). The District Court dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction over Bavis, an Ohio citizen.

We have no jurisdiction over this appeal. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (1982) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—

(1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title____

Accordingly, we transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (1982).