BECK AND CO. GMBH, v. General Electric Company

Decision Date28 May 1963
Docket NumberNo. 288,Docket 27951.,288
Citation317 F.2d 538
PartiesDR. BECK AND CO. G.M.B.H., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Michael S. Striker, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

William W. Rymer, Boston, Mass. (Rynn Berry, New York City, on the brief; H. L. Kirkpatrick, Boston, Mass., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before FRIENDLY, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.


Dr. Beck & Co. G.M.B.H., a German corporation, sought a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that United States Patent No. 2,936,296, issued on May 10, 1960, to the defendant, General Electric Company, was invalid and not infringed. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201-2202. Judge Levet granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction because of the absence of an actual controversy between the parties. 210 F.Supp. 86 (S.D.N.Y.1962). On this appeal by the plaintiff, we affirm the decision of the district court.

The existence of an actual controversy in the constitutional sense is necessary to sustain jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act; the court must be presented with "a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged." Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). In patent cases of the present kind, the determination of the existence of such a case or controversy turns upon whether a claim or charge of infringement has been made, directly or indirectly, by the owner of the patent. Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 200 F. 2d 876 (2 Cir. 1952); Treemond Co. v. Schering Corp., 122 F.2d 702 (3 Cir. 1941); cf. Topp-Cola Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 314 F.2d 124 (2 Cir. 1963). Assuming in plaintiff's favor that Behrendt and McIntosh, employees of General Electric International, had made charges of infringement against Dr. Beck & Co. with respect to the United States patent in question, we think it clear on this record, as Judge Levet found, that neither man had actual or apparent authority to make such a charge on behalf of General Electric. A charge of infringement made by agents who have no authority to make it does not create an actual controversy. Alamo Refining Co. v. Shell Development Co., 84 F.Supp. 325 (D.Del.1949).

Moreover, even in actions which technically fall within the jurisdictional requirements of § 2201, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Oriental Commercial & Shipping v. ROSSEEL, NV
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 19 Diciembre 1988
    ...ed.).... As Judge Levet shrewdly observed in Dr. Beck & Co. v. General Electric Co., 210 F.Supp. 86, 90 (S.D.N. Y.1962), aff'd, 317 F.2d 538 (2d Cir.1963): While agents are often successful in creating an appearance of authority by their own acts and statements, such an appearance does not ......
  • U.S. v. City of Las Cruces
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 7 Mayo 2002 exercise jurisdiction over suit asserting that ERISA preempted state insurance licensing requirement); Dr. Beck & Co. G.M.B.H. v. Gen'l Elec. Co., 317 F.2d 538, 539 (2d Cir.1963) (patent infringement); see also 10B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice a......
  • Schutte Bagclosures Inc. v. Kwik Lok Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 Septiembre 2014
    ...conclusion. See Dr. Beck & Co. G.M.B.H. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 210 F.Supp. 86, 92 (S.D.N.Y.1962)aff'd sub nom. Dr. Beck & Co. G.M.B.H. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 317 F.2d 538 (2d Cir.1963) (holding that a controversy in the United States cannot be implied by the bringing of a patent suit in France, eve......
  • Enka BV of Arnhem, Holland v. EI DU PONT, ETC., Civ. A. No. 80-358
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 10 Julio 1981
    ...Corp., 354 F.Supp. 1113 (N.D.Ill.1973); Dr. Beck & Co. v. General Electric Co., 210 F.Supp. 86, 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), aff'd, 317 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1963). Thus, Akzo's commercial plans and current activities do not implicate duPont's federal rights in the intermediate and process patents at is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT