Precision Screen Machines, Inc., In re, 84-802
Decision Date | 09 March 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84-802,84-802 |
Citation | 221 USPQ 1034,729 F.2d 1428 |
Parties | In re PRECISION SCREEN MACHINES, INC., and Precision Techniques, Inc. Appeal |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Edward R. Weingram, Paramus, N.J., for petitioner.
John F. Flannery, Chicago, Ill., for respondent; James J. Hill, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Before BENNETT, MILLER, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners, defendants below, apply pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651 (1976) and FED.R.APP.P. 21(a) for a writ of mandamus directed to the Honorable Herbert J. Stern, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On November 23, 1983, and January 23, 1984, the district court entered orders which denied defendants' motion to dismiss in Civil Action No. 83-2750-S. The motion was predicated on the failure of complaint counts I and II, for infringement of patents under which plaintiffs have an exclusive license limited to a field of use with the right to sue infringers, to join the owner of the patents, Ealing Corporation of Massachusetts, as a necessary or indispensable party under FED.R.CIV.P. 19.
Ealing, on notice of the action, has refused to join as a voluntary plaintiff. The court below has, in addition, not ordered it to do so.
The writ sought would mandamus the district court to vacate its orders denying petitioners' motion to dismiss and to strike counts I and II, or in the alternative, to require Ealing to be joined as an involuntary plaintiff. The district court has refused to certify the matter for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).
Petitioners apparently recognize that this court currently has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) to review interlocutory matters, such as that presented here, even if certified, Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. Powell Manufacturing Co., 709 F.2d 710 (Fed.Cir.1983), or any administrative supervisory authority over any district court under the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub.L. No. 97-164, 96 Stat. 25, as might justify a writ of mandamus under certain circumstances by a regional circuit court. C.P.C. Partnership v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400 (Fed.Cir.1983).
Accordingly, petitioners are reduced to proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651, the All Writs Act. Nevertheless, we decline to issue the writ sought, finding in the circumstances of this case no clear demonstration of any abuse of discretion by the district court, as in Mississippi Chemical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc.
...in: Beghin-Say International, Inc. v. Ole-Bendt Rasmussen, 733 F.2d 1568, 221 USPQ 1121 (Fed.Cir.1984); In re Precision Screen Machines Inc., 729 F.2d 1428 (Fed.Cir.1984); Henderson v. Office of Personnel Management, 724 F.2d 119 (Fed.Cir.1983); Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 722......
-
Innotron Diagnostics, In re
...without prejudice to renewal if the Federal Circuit determines that it has no jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295; In re Precision Screen Machines, Inc., 729 F.2d 1429 [sic, 1428, 221 USPQ 1034] Issues Presented (1) Whether this court has appellate jurisdiction over the case. (2) Whether ......
-
Weinar v. Rollform Inc., s. 84-515
...26 L.Ed. 959 (1881); Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U.S. 485, 5 S.Ct. 244, 28 L.Ed. 768 (1884). See, also, In re Precision Screen Machines, Inc., 729 F.2d 1428, 221 USPQ 1034 (Fed.Cir.1984) (Refusal to dismiss complaint of field of use license, patentee not joined, held not abuse of discretion wa......
-
United States v. Babayan
... ... City of New York v ... Fedex Ground Package System , Inc ., 314 F.R.D. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Babayan is charged with ... ...