Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, Drake & Piper
| Decision Date | 23 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 8600,8601.,8600 |
| Citation | 25 F. Supp. 1021 |
| Parties | DEWEY & ALMY CHEMICAL CO. v. JOHNSON, DRAKE & PIPER, Inc. SAME v. ANDREW WESTON CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
John W. Hoag, of New York City, (Dike, Calver A. Gray, George P. Dike, and Cedric W. Porter, all of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Harry Price, of New York City, for defendants.
These are suits for the alleged infringement of the same patents and the issues are substantially the same, except as to the particular acts of infringement.
These suits come before the Court on twelve motions, being six motions in each case, which are exactly similar to the six motions in the other case.
1. Motions made by the defendants for orders consolidating one case with the other for trial.
2. Motions made by the defendants for orders permitting the defendants, as third party plaintiff to serve summonses and third party complaints.
3. Motions made by the plaintiff to dismiss the action alleged in paragraphs 2 to 13 inclusive of defendants third party complaint.
4. Motions made by plaintiff to dismiss any cause of action that may be set forth in paragraph 18 of the defendant's Third Party Complaint.
5. Motions made by plaintiff, to strike out from the Third Party Complaint wherever it may appear all reference to the Third Party Defendants.
6. Motions made by plaintiff for a bill of particulars.
The convenience of the parties and the Court will be served by a consolidation of the two cases for trial, and no good cause is shown to the contrary.
The motions for leave as third party plaintiff to serve summons and third party complaints, and the motions to dismiss defendants third party complaint will be considered together.
Plaintiff contends that the third party complaint should be dismissed on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction until personal service be made, and cites Rule 13 (h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.
That rule however does not sustain their contention as it provides in part: "the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants as provided in these rules, if jurisdiction of them can be obtained and their joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the action."
The counterclaim being for alleged violations of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, committed in this district, jurisdiction can be obtained over the proposed third party defendants by service upon them in the districts in which they have principal offices or places of business, or in the States in which they are incorporated. Eastman Kodak Company of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Company, 273 U.S. 359, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684.
The third party complaint as a counterclaim against plaintiff alone would undoubtedly be proper, as it sets up a counterclaim or cross bill against plaintiff for unfair competitive activities arising out of the transactions of the complaint, and that is a proper counterclaim even in the absence of diversity of citizenship. Kaumagraph Co. v. General Trade Mark Corporation, D.C., 12 F.Supp. 230.
It is also proper to counterclaim for declaratory judgment to have a patent held invalid and non-infringed where the complaint alleges infringement of a patent. Meinecke et al. v. Eagle Druggists Supply Co., Inc., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 523, 525.
The plaintiff by coming voluntarily into the District Court of this District subjects itself to the Jurisdiction of this Court in respect to all possible grounds of counterclaim. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 451, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389. See, also, General Electric Co. et al. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U. S. 430, 53 S.Ct. 202, 77 L.Ed. 408.
As to the third party complaint against plaintiff and the third party defendants, it is fairly to be inferred from the answering affidavits of John A. Lunn, and W. S. Rea, offered by plaintiff, in support of its motion, that the plaintiff Dewey & Almy Chemical Company is being utilized as a nominal legal title holder of the patent in suit, by the third-party defendants, who it is alleged in the third party complaint have with the plaintiff, set up, or been attempting to set up a monopoly in an unpatented commodity-carbon black-under the guise of alleged patent protection, including the patents in suit.
The proposed third party complaint also alleges that the plaintiff and third party defendants have conspired unlawfully among themselves to substantially lessen competition and establish a monopoly in the sale of unpatented carbon black for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
...to Use of Foster Wheeler Corporation v. American Surety Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1938, 25 F.Supp. 700; Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc., D.C. E.D.N.Y.1939, 25 F.Supp. 1021, latter two — The first ground of the motion to dismiss (no claim against third-party defendants upon ......
-
Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corporation
...Moore, op.cit. 680, 681, 690, and see, e.g., Carter Oil Co. v. Wood, D.C.E.D.Ill., 30 F.Supp. 875; Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc., D.C.E.D.N.Y., 25 F.Supp. 1021; and as to intervention under Rule 24 and counterclaims by intervenors, 2 Moore, 1943 Cum.Supp., 106, 1......
-
In re American Export Group Intern. Services, Inc.
...not only as to his own cause of action but also as to any counterclaim filed against him); Dewey & Almy Chem. Co. v. Johnson Drake & Piper, Inc., 25 F.Supp. 1021, 1022 (E.D.N.Y. 1939) (plaintiff by coming voluntarily into court subjects itself to jurisdiction over all possible grounds of co......
-
Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.
...Co. v. Dorr Co., D.C., 15 F.Supp. 663; Meinecke v. Eagle Druggists Supply Co., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 523; Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 1021. See, also, 50 Harv.L.Rev. 357. We think that these decisions are sound. The counterclaim falls within former......