498 F.Supp. 129 (S.D.Tex. 1980), Civ. A. H-79-1476, Chamfer Engineering, Inc. v. Tapco Intern., Inc.

Docket Nº:Civ. A. H-79-1476
Citation:498 F.Supp. 129
Party Name:Chamfer Engineering, Inc. v. Tapco Intern., Inc.
Case Date:October 06, 1980
Court:United States District Courts, 5th Circuit, Southern District of Texas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 129

498 F.Supp. 129 (S.D.Tex. 1980)

212 U.S.P.Q. 464

CHAMFER ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiff,

v.

TAPCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., and R. I. Patents, Inc., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. H-79-1476.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas

Oct. 6, 1980

Page 130

Robert C. Baker, St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

Eugene L. Johnson (Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay), Minneapolis, Minn., James F. Weiler, Fulbright & Jaworski and G. Bryon Jamison, II, Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McDONALD, District Judge.

Came on to be heard plaintiff's Motion for Dismissal requesting this Court to dismiss both its complaint and defendants' counterclaim. On September 5, 1980, a hearing was held for the purposes of clarification of the parties' arguments. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion.

This is a declaratory judgment action filed initially by the plaintiff in the United States District Court of Minnesota seeking a judgment declaring twenty-two (22) patents invalid and not infringed, asserting fraud in obtaining each of the patents, and alleging patent misuse, antitrust violations

Page 131

and unfair competition by the defendants. On February 6, 1979, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of indispensable parties, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and lack of a justiciable controversy. On March 18, 1979, Chief Judge Edward J. Devitt granted one of the defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, but denied the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over R. I. Patents, Inc., for lack of an indispensable party, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court did not explicitly rule on Tapco's motion to dismiss for lack of a justiciable controversy.

Subsequently, both the plaintiff and the defendants filed motions to reconsider the Court's ruling of March 18, 1979. Defendants Tapco and R. I. Patents then moved to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Judge Devitt granted the motion to transfer against the plaintiff's opposition on May 23, 1979, on the grounds that the transfer would resolve all justiciable problems then under consideration, particularly the question involving an alleged indispensable party located in Texas. On April 23, 1979, defendants Tapco and R. I. Patents filed an answer and counterclaim in this Court in which their allegation of patent infringement was made "subject to a finding that the requisite ... declaratory judgment controversy exists" to support plaintiff's complaint.

The plaintiff now seeks to dismiss the entire action after a year and a half of litigation. Plaintiff argues that since the filing of its amended complaint, the unauthorized behavior by the defendants has ceased and consequently it "accepts and admits defendants'...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP