Consolidated Packaging Machinery Corp. v. Kelly
Decision Date | 09 June 1958 |
Docket Number | 12071.,No. 12070,12070 |
Citation | 253 F.2d 49 |
Parties | CONSOLIDATED PACKAGING MACHINERY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard J. KELLY, Executor, etc., Defendant-Appellant. Richard J. KELLY, Executor, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
J. Edgar Kelly, Wilfred S. Stone, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
John Vaughan Groner, New York City, James P. Hume, Chicago, Ill., James D. Bock, New York City, of counsel, for appellee.
Before FINNEGAN, SCHNACKENBERG and HASTINGS, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied June 9, 1958. See 78 S.Ct. 1151.
For many years Thomas C. Kelly, now deceased, was a sales representative of plaintiff, Consolidated Packaging Machinery Corporation, a manufacturer and seller of packaging machinery Kelly designed, and on September 5, 1939 obtained United States Letters Patent No. 2,171,572 on a machine described as a cottoner (Cottoner or Kottoner) which inserted a wad of cotton into the neck of a bottle or jar. Subsequently plaintiff became the exclusive licensee of Kelly, as licensor, under an agreement dated December 12, 1939. For the right to manufacture and sell machines under Kelly's patent, plaintiff agreed, inter alia, that it would not manufacture and sell any other cottoners and would pay Kelly royalties on the gross selling price of such machines. During the period 1939 to 1944 plaintiff manufactured, sold cottoners and paid Kelly royalties.
On June 13, 1944, the plaintiff Consolidated, entered into an agreement with Eino E. Lakso, owner of Lakso U.S. patents Nos. 2,269,722 and 2,304,932 for methods and apparatus for inserting packing in containers. Under this contract Lakso granted Consolidated an exclusive, royalty-bearing, non-transferable license, for those two patents.
This lawsuit pivots on several clauses, reprinted below, contained in a superseding contract by and between Consolidated and Kelly who signed it on June 3, 1944.
In 1946 plaintiff advised Kelly that the June 3, 1944 agreement was illegal and plaintiff ignored Kelly's offer of cancellation. Consolidated performed under that contract from June 3, 1944 to February 20, 1956 when plaintiff filed its complaint for a declaratory judgment in the district court. Thomas C. Kelly died in June, 1955 and Richard J. Kelly, the executor of his estate, is the defendant in this appeal.
By its deceptively simple appearing complaint Consolidated asked the district judge to declare the license agreement of June 3, 1944 (Consolidated-Kelly) invalid, unenforceable and rescinded.
Each side filed a motion for summary judgment and submitted supporting affidavits. The relevant agreements, and some correspondence, were all before the district judge when he entered the following final judgment from which defendant appealed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, In re
...Corp. v. Leesona Corp., Case No. 74-2835, as the trial court had not ruled on them. Burlington relied upon Consolidated Packaging Machinery Corp. v. Kelly, 253 F.2d 49, 51 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 906, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1958); and Massillon-Cleveland-Akron Sign Co. v.......
-
Malatesta v. Leichter
...v. Nelson Steel & Wire, Inc. (1982), 107 Ill.App.3d 442, 449, 63 Ill.Dec. 251, 256, 437 N.E.2d 900, 905; Consolidated Packaging Machinery Corp. v. Kelly (7th Cir.1958), 253 F.2d 49, 51. Defendant has not cited any cases holding that a person cannot sue for interference where the contract is......
-
Advance Indus. Sec., Inc. v. William J. Burns Intern. Detective Agency, Inc.
...74 So. 761 (1917); Paramount Pad Co. v. Baumrind, 4 N.Y.2d 393, 175 N.Y.S.2d 809, 151 N.E.2d 609 (1958); Consolidated Packaging Machinery Corp. v. Kelly, 253 F.2d 49 (7th Cir.) certiorari denied, 357 U.S. 906, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L. Ed.2d 1156 (1958); Hansen v. Barrett, 183 F.Supp. 831, 833 (D......
-
Sawner v. M. P. Smith Const. Co., Inc.
...by T.C.A. Section 12--421.' See and compare: Sinclair Refining Company v. Howell (Ala.1955) 222 F.2d 637; Consolidated Packaging Machinery Corp. v. Kelly (Ill.1958) 253 F.2d 49, cert. denied 357 U.S. 906, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L.Ed.2d 1156; Fontes v. Porter (Cal.1946) 156 F.2d The defendant bond......