Briggs v. Gould-National Batteries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 65 C 2073.,65 C 2073. |
| Citation | 272 F. Supp. 186 |
| Parties | Southwick W. BRIGGS and Stone Filter Company, Incorporated, Plaintiffs, v. GOULD-NATIONAL BATTERIES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Walther E. Wyss, Mason, Kolehmainen, Rathburn & Wyss, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Edward W. Osann, Jr., Wolfe, Hubbard, Voit, Osann, Chicago, Ill., for defendant, Gould-National Batteries, Inc.
Defendant has moved to dismiss or transfer this cause alleging improper venue. Assuming proper venue, defendant also moves to transfer the cause to the District of Colorado for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1404(a).
Venue in a patent infringement action is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b) which provides:
"(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."
The parties agree that defendant does not reside in this district. The question thus becomes whether defendant, within this district; (a) has committed acts of infringement, and, (b) has a regular and established place of business.
Defendant's operation of a manufacturing plant of its Battery Division and its operation of a sales office to promote the sales of the products of its Battery Division and, to a lesser extent the accused filters, constitutes a regular and established place of business within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Defendant's salesmen continuously solicited orders for the accused filters in this district, though the soliciting of filter sales may have been secondary to their efforts on behalf of the products of the Battery Division. These salesmen were equipped with samples of the accused filters for demonstration or display to potential customers. They were also supplied with catalogs and brochures advertising the accused filters. These activities are sufficient to amount to "infringing sales" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), even though the sales were not completed in the district but had to be forwarded to St. Paul, Minnesota, and Longmont, Colorado for final acceptance. (Union Asbestos and Rubber Co. v. Evans Products Co., 7th Cir., 328 F.2d 949.)
Defendant's motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue is denied.
I find no reason to disturb plaintiff's choice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT v. Electronic Memories
...Products Company, supra; American Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 433 F.Supp. 333 (E.D.Wis.1977); Briggs v. Gould-National Batteries, Inc., 272 F.Supp. 186 (N.D.Ill.1967); Stiegele v. Jacques Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation, 213 F.Supp. 494 (S.D.N.Y.1962). I join those courts who......
-
Magnavox Co. v. Bally Mfg. Corp., 74 C 1030.
...witnesses and documents will have to be brought here by Empire and Bally anyway. In a similar case, Briggs v. Gould-National Batteries, Inc., 272 F.Supp. 186 (N.D.Ill. 1967), Chief Judge Campbell denied a motion to transfer one of six consolidated cases alleging infringement of the identica......
-
Briggs v. Wix Corporation
...pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which were denied, Briggs v. Fram Corporation, 272 F.Supp. 185 (1967) and Briggs v. Gould-National Batteries, Inc., 272 F.Supp. 186 (1967), the cases were ordered consolidated. Prior to trial and in accordance with the General Order of this court, the parties......
-
Magnavox Co. v. APF Electronics, Inc.
...Cir. 1963); Admiral Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 161 U.S.P.Q. 123, 126 (N.D.Ill.1969); Briggs v. Gould-National Batteries, Inc., 272 F.Supp. 186, 187 (N.D.Ill.1967). Fairchild argues that all of these factors weigh in its favor and that while transfer would cause only slight......