ARCO POLYMERS v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle
Decision Date | 23 November 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-2917. |
Citation | 555 F. Supp. 547 |
Parties | ARCO POLYMERS, INC. v. STUDIENGESELLSCHAFT KOHLE mbH and Max Planck Institut Fur Kohlenforschung. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Frank H. Griffin, III, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., Paul E. Crawford, Connolly, Bove & Lodge, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Donald K. Joseph, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., Arnold Sprung, Sprung, Felfe, Horn, Lynch & Kramer, New York City, for defendants.
This is a declaratory judgment action in which plaintiff, ARCO Polymers, Inc. (API), seeks a judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of two of defendants' patents, namely, United States Patents No. 3,113,115 and No. 9,903,017. The dispositive issue of this lawsuit in its current posture, however, is the validity of United States Patent No. 3,113,115 (hereinafter the "'115 patent"). Now before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment And/Or Dismissal On The Grounds Of Res Judicata And Licensee Estoppel; and (2) Plaintiff's Motion For Stay Of Proceedings And Other Interim Relief.
The '115 patent at issue was originally the property of Professor Karl Ziegler until his death in 1973 when ownership of the patent passed to the defendant Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, acting as trustee for Professor Ziegler's research institute, the defendant Max Planck Institut Fur Kohlenforschung. Essentially, the '115 patent covers the chemical formulae of a polymerization catalyst used in the chemical reaction processes that produce synthetic polymers. See Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 483 F.2d 858 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1079, 94 S.Ct. 597, 38 L.Ed.2d 485 (1973) ( ). The '115 patent expired December 3, 1980 and plaintiff now seeks in connection with this action, a return of all royalties paid pendente lite to defendants under certain license agreements relating to the '115 patent as well as the '017 patent.
In 1977, API purchased "an ongoing polypropylene business" from Diamond Shamrock Corporation.1 Included in the purchase was "all right, title and interest" in Diamond Shamrock's plant for the manufacture of polypropylene located in Monument, Texas.2 Also included in the purchase was the transfer of a then existing patent license between defendant herein, Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH and Diamond Shamrock under several patents, including the '115 patent at issue in the instant lawsuit.3
Diamond Shamrock had, in turn, earlier acquired all right, title and interest in the Monument facility from Phillips Petroleum Company.4 Moreover, the Monument facility at which plaintiff has been manufacturing polypropylene is the same plant5 whose operations gave rise to the litigation in Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 483 F.2d 858, 875 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1079, 94 S.Ct. 597, 38 L.Ed.2d 485 (1973). In Ziegler, supra, the '115 patent was found to be both "valid and infringed." Id. at 875.6 To summarize, therefore, the plaintiff in Ziegler, supra, was the direct predecessor in interest to the indirect successor in interest, Arco Polymers, Inc.
Defendants' motion seeks summary judgment and/or dismissal on grounds that 1) Plaintiff is barred by res judicata from urging invalidity or noninfringement of the '115 patent in suit in view of the final judgment entered by the Court in Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Company, supra, which held that the '115 patent was valid and infringed at the Monument polypropylene plant now owned by API; and 2) Plaintiff is barred by licensee estoppel from urging that the '115 patent is valid.
As respects the contention based on res judicata, defendants urge that where, as here, a party is successor in interest to the ownership of a facility whose operations are adjudged to infringe a valid patent, the successor party is in privity with the infringer in the prior action and is barred by res judicata from relitigating the validity of the patent. Brunswick Corporation v. Chrysler Corporation, 408 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1980); Schnitger v. Canoga Electronics Corporation, 462 F.2d 628 (9th Cir.1972).
In Brunswick Corporation, supra, Chrysler Corporation had purchased the engine division of The West Bend Company, which had constituted West Bend's entire business relating to outboard motors and stern drives. West Bend had earlier entered into a consent decree acknowledging that the sale of its "Tiger Shark 800" outboard motors and stern drives infringed a valid patent held by another company, the Kiekhaefer Corporation. The assets of Kiekhaefer, including its patents, were later purchased by Brunswick Corporation. In an infringement suit brought by Brunswick against Chrysler, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Chrysler was in privity with West Bend Company and was bound by the earlier decree entered between Keikhaefer and West Bend. Id. The Court explained:
Plaintiff, however, seeks to distinguish Brunswick Corporation, supra, on grounds that that case involved Chrysler's direct purchase of a business from West Bend which had entered into a consent decree admitting validity of the patent asserted against Chrysler. In the present case, plaintiff contends that "API's indirect purchase of the Monument plant after Diamond Shamrock's intervening purchase of Phillips' business totally isolates and removes API from Phillips, thereby destroying any privity between these companies."7
In the Court's view, however, the circumstance of an intervening purchaser (Diamond Shamrock) of the Monument plant does not, in itself, destroy privity as between Phillips and API. "`Privity' is an ambiguous term, a shorthand designation for those persons who `have a sufficiently close relationship with the record parties to be bound by the judgment.'" Vulcan v. Fordees Corp., 658 F.2d 1106, 1109 (6th Cir. 1981), quoting Note, Developments in the Law — Res Judicata, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818, 856 (1952). The circumstances of the present case, upon the undisputed facts of record, evidence such a sufficiently close relationship between API and Phillips. First, it is clear that API was more than a mere purchaser of a limited amount of the infringing product. Brunswick Corporation, supra at 336; Vulcan Inc. v. Fordees Corp., supra at 1110. Rather, API succeeded to ownership of an entire manufacturing facility and polypropylene business, whose operations were earlier adjudged to be infringing a valid patent. Significantly, there is no allegation by plaintiff that the catalyst used at the Monument plant differs from that used by its predecessor in interest, Phillips, and covered by the claims of the '115 patent.
Second, nothing in the rule of law applied by the Court in Brunswick Corporation, supra, requires that only direct successors in interest to the subject matter of a prior decree be bound thereby. In this regard, reference to the policy considerations relative to the finality of litigation is instructive:
A transferee of land, chattels or choses in action with reference to which an action has begun, is bound by and obtains the benefits of the rules of res judicata as they apply to the subject matter, which arise from a judgment in the action. The rule necessarily follows from the principles of res judicata; otherwise a transfer of property would unsettle controversies which an action was intended to settle. The rule applies to any form of transfer whether by purchase, gift or operation of law.
Restatement of Judgments § 89, Comment C.
Plaintiff also argues, however, that absent some showing of fraudulent intent and collusion with Phillips to avoid the impact of the earlier decision, the earlier judgment is not binding on API. In this regard, we find the case of A.S. Boyler...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lapensohn v. Hudson City Sav. Bank
...to Hudson City, M&T Bank is in privity with Hudson City and may rely on the earlier judgment. See ARCO Polymers, Inc. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 555 F. Supp. 547, 551 (E.D. Pa. 1982) ("[W]e hold that upon the undisputed facts of record, API succeeded in interest to the subject matter......
-
Stolarick v. Keycorp
...As First Niagara's successor-in-interest, Defendant KeyBank is in privity with First Niagara. See ARCO Polymers, Inc. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 555 F. Supp. 547, 549-50 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Schneler v. Zitomer, 2015 WL 115569, at *5 (E.D. Pa. 2015). As such, the two matters involved the......
-
Arco Polymers, Inc. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle
...Arco's operations at its plant in Monument, Texas. This appeal involves one of those patents, the '115 patent. The district court, 555 F.Supp. 547, dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata because: (1) Arco had purchased the plant from a company that itself had purchased the plant ......
- Arco Polymers, Inc. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle