713 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 83-1179, Holmes v. Bendix Corp.

Docket NºAppeal No. 83-1179.
Citation713 F.2d 792
Party Name219 U.S.P.Q. 6 Horace D. HOLMES, Plaintiff and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The BENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and DETROIT TAP AND TOOL COMPANY, Third Party Plaintiff and Third Party Defendant-Appellant, v. MICRODOT INC. Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
Case DateJuly 29, 1983
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 792

713 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

219 U.S.P.Q. 6

Horace D. HOLMES, Plaintiff and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

The BENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee,

and

DETROIT TAP AND TOOL COMPANY, Third Party Plaintiff and

Third Party Defendant-Appellant,

v.

MICRODOT INC. Third Party Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal No. 83-1179.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

July 29, 1983

Page 793

Thomas N. Young, Troy, Mich., for Horace D. Holmes.

Neal A. Waldrop, Troy, Mich., for The Bendix Corp. and Microdot, Inc.; Malcolm R. McKinnon, Troy, Mich., of counsel.

William J. Schramm, Mount Clemens, Mich., for Detroit Tap and Tool Co.; John E. Nemazi, Mount Clemens, Mich., of counsel.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, NICHOLS and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

NICHOLS, Circuit Judge.

This action involves several parties and multiple issues of patent validity, infringement, unfair competition, and alleged violation of the antitrust laws. Detroit Tap and Tool Company (Detroit), third party plaintiff and third party defendant, did not in its pleadings seek injunctive relief. It moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for a summary judgment on the ground that without its own authorization, parties Bendix and Microdot had no license, express or implied, to practice the invention in litigation. Bendix and Microdot cross-moved, as did original plaintiff Holmes. None of the motions or cross-motions make any reference to injunctive relief, and it is apparent by reading Rule 56 itself, that summary judgment procedure is provided not for injunctive relief, but for recovery "upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment * * *."

The motion and cross-motion elicited a decision or order by District Judge Feikens to the effect, in summary, that Microdot, and Bendix by derivation from Microdot, have a license to practice the invention, to which the rights of Detroit are subordinate. This is on its face a declaratory judgment and makes no reference to injunctive relief, but Detroit says, and so far as we can see correctly says, that while it stands, injunctive relief for Detroit is precluded.

Detroit appeals from this summary judgment. Microdot and Bendix move to dismiss the appeal on the ground it is filed against an interlocutory order and we lack jurisdiction. We agree.

It is not asserted that Judge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • 574 F.Supp. 832 (N.D.Ohio 1983), C76-101, Morgan Adhesives Co. v. Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit Northern District of Ohio
    • October 21, 1983
    ...Co., 561 F.2d 677, 685 (7th Cir.1977) (cited with approval in White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., supra, 713 F.2d at 792). "However, an award is proper only where the district court had made specific findings that bring the case within the 'exceptional' defi......
  • 818 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 87-1016, Woodard v. Sage Products, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • May 4, 1987
    ...this court in Chaparral Communications, Inc. v. Boman Industries, Inc., 798 F.2d 456, 230 USPQ 535 (Fed.Cir.1986); Holmes v. Bendix Corp., 713 F.2d 792, 219 USPQ 6 (Fed.Cir.1983), and Veach v. Vinyl Improvement Products Co., 700 F.2d 1390, 217 USPQ 97 (Fed.Cir.1983), in which interlocutory ......
  • 798 F.2d 456 (Fed. Cir. 1986), 86-1061, Chaparral Communications, Inc. v. Boman Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • July 28, 1986
    ...Association, Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966). This court, in Holmes v. Bendix Corp., 713 F.2d 792 (Fed.Cir.1983), was confronted with facts very similar to the instant case. The district court had granted summary judgment on licensing issues ......
3 cases
  • 574 F.Supp. 832 (N.D.Ohio 1983), C76-101, Morgan Adhesives Co. v. Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit Northern District of Ohio
    • October 21, 1983
    ...Co., 561 F.2d 677, 685 (7th Cir.1977) (cited with approval in White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., supra, 713 F.2d at 792). "However, an award is proper only where the district court had made specific findings that bring the case within the 'exceptional' defi......
  • 818 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 87-1016, Woodard v. Sage Products, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • May 4, 1987
    ...this court in Chaparral Communications, Inc. v. Boman Industries, Inc., 798 F.2d 456, 230 USPQ 535 (Fed.Cir.1986); Holmes v. Bendix Corp., 713 F.2d 792, 219 USPQ 6 (Fed.Cir.1983), and Veach v. Vinyl Improvement Products Co., 700 F.2d 1390, 217 USPQ 97 (Fed.Cir.1983), in which interlocutory ......
  • 798 F.2d 456 (Fed. Cir. 1986), 86-1061, Chaparral Communications, Inc. v. Boman Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • July 28, 1986
    ...Association, Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966). This court, in Holmes v. Bendix Corp., 713 F.2d 792 (Fed.Cir.1983), was confronted with facts very similar to the instant case. The district court had granted summary judgment on licensing issues ......