American Tech. Mach. Corp. v. Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 7798. |
| Citation | 235 F. Supp. 917 |
| Parties | AMERICAN TECHNICAL MACHINERY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MASTERPIECE ENTERPRISES, INC., Norris Machine Co., Inc., Percy Dieffenbach and Alfred Norris, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
John M. Calimafde, New York City, George A. Yavorek, Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.
Sol Lubin, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Robert K. Youtie, Philadelphia, Pa., Henry G. Hager, 3d, Williamsport, Pa., Donald E. Zinn, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
In this action, plaintiff, American Technical Machinery Corporation, seeks injunctive relief and damages from Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc., and Norris Machine Company, Inc., and also against Percy Dieffenbach, President of Masterpiece, individually, and Alfred Norris, President of Norris, individually. It is plaintiff's contention that the defendants have infringed with plaintiff's patent. The defendant, Percy Dieffenbach, has moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A., to dismiss the action, asserting that the complaint fails to state a claim against him upon which relief can be granted.
The pertinent allegation of the complaint avers that the defendant, Percy Dieffenbach, with knowledge of plaintiff's patent, induced and conspired with Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc., to infringe the aforesaid patent, thereby causing plaintiff substantial damage. It is defendant's contention that this allegation does not raise a prima facie presumption of liability on his part as an individual. He argues, rather, that the alleged acts of infringement in the complaint were the acts of the corporate defendants and, in the absence of special circumstances, managing officers of a corporation are not liable for the infringing acts of the corporation though committed under their general direction.
Under the Patent Statute, 35 U.S.C.A. § 271(b), anyone who "actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." The decisions in patent infringement cases are clear that where an individual is an organizer, president and dominant spirit of an infringing company, then he is personally liable. Shuldener, et al. v. Trio Water Engineering Corporation, et al., 15 F. Supp. 732, 734 (S.D.N.Y.1936), and Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co., 204 F. Supp. 649 (N.D.Ill.1961). This rule was applied in Upjohn Company v. Italian Drugs Importing Co., 190 F.Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y.1961):
"* * * where a corporate officer exceeds his executive duties and deliberately organizes a corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc., C.A. No. 74-H-790.
...98 S.Ct. 183, 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977); Timely Prod. Corp. v. Arron, 303 F.Supp. 713 (D.Conn. 1969); American Technical Mach. Corp. v. Masterpiece Enter., Inc., 235 F.Supp. 917, 918 (M.D.Pa.1964); Briggs v. M & J Diesel Locomotive Filter Corp., 228 F.Supp. 26, 60-61 (N.D.Ill.1964), aff'd, 342 ......
-
A. Stucki Co. v. Schwam
...550 F.2d 716 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 859, 98 S.Ct. 183, 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977); American Technical Machinery Corp. v. Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc., 235 F.Supp. 917, 918 (M.D.Pa.1964); Upjohn Company v. Italian Drugs Importing Co., 190 F.Supp. 361, 367-68 (S.D.N.Y.1961); Cf. Donsco......
-
Russell v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.
...damages; the Plaintiffs' do not make specific allegations beyond mere negligence. See Am. Technical Mach. Corp. v. Masterpiece Enters., Inc., 235 F. Supp. 917, 918 (M.D. Pa. 1964) (Nealon, J.). This does not meet the high standard for "evil motive" or "reckless indifference" necessary to im......
-
Hunt v. Hunt
...in appellant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. In American Technical Machinery Corporation v. Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc., 235 F.Supp. 917, 918 (M.D.Pa.1964), the court there held: "A motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon wh......