Cordis Corp. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 78-1439
| Decision Date | 13 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1439,78-1439 |
| Citation | 202 U.S.P.Q. 465,599 F.2d 1085 |
| Parties | CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CARDIAC PACEMAKERS et al., Defendants, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Herbert P. Kenway, Boston, Mass., with whom Henry D. Pahl, Jr., and Kenway & Jenney, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellant.
Orrin M. Haugen, Minneapolis, Minn., with whom Robert A. Cesari, and Cesari & McKenna, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellees.
Before ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges, and CAFFREY, * District Judge.
This is an action for patent infringement brought by the plaintiff, Cordis Corporation against defendants, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. and Edward J. Luczek. Plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal of the case as against the defendant, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. The dismissal was based on the failure of plaintiff to establish the existence of venue under the patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
Cordis Corporation (Cordis) is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Defendant, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (CPI) is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. The action was brought by Cordis for alleged infringement by CPI of United States Letters Patent No. 3,557,796 and No. 3,805,796. Both patents relate to cardiac pacemakers which are small electronic generators capable of being implanted in the body of patients afflicted with certain diseases of the heart.
The record in the district court establishes that after the commencement of this action in October, 1977, defendants responded with a motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of jurisdiction. The record contains several affidavits submitted in support of the motion, defendants' interrogatories to plaintiff, plaintiff's answers thereto, the transcript of two depositions, and several other documents including additional affidavits and a copy of the contract between CPI and its exclusive sales agent Cardio-Pace, Inc., a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. The motion to dismiss was referred to a United States Magistrate by the district court and on May 11, 1978 the Magistrate filed a report and recommendation which included nine specific findings of fact and the recommendation that the district court dismiss the action for non-compliance with the special patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. 1400(b). The district court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation and entered judgment dismissing the action as against defendant CPI. It continued the action as against the individual defendant Luczek, an employee of CPI who resides in Massachusetts. At a later date the district court entered the appropriate order under Rule 54(b) to make the dismissal of CPI a final and appealable judgment.
28 U.S.C. 1400(b) provides:
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.
There is no evidence in the record upon which the court could have found that CPI was a resident of Massachusetts, thus no argument can be made that CPI's residence provided a basis for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Therefore in order to show compliance with the requirements of Section 1400(b) plaintiff must establish that defendant has Both committed acts of infringement in Massachusetts and has a regular and established place of business in Massachusetts, General Radio Co. v. Superior Electric Co., 293 F.2d 949, 951 (1st Cir. 1961). It should be noted that there is ample authority placing the burden of so doing on the plaintiff once a defendant has challenged venue by filing a motion to dismiss based on the lack thereof. Amba Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar Intern, Inc., 551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977); Stanley Works v. Globemaster, Inc., 400 F.Supp. 1325 (D.Mass.1975); Action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collision Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Solutions & Networks OY
...the plaintiff." Gill v. Nakamura, No. 14-cv-13621, 2015 WL 5074475, at *2 (D. Mass. July 24, 2015) (citing Cordis Corp. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 599 F.2d 1085, 1086 (1st Cir. 1979) ). Because the Court has found that it does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant, see Section III.A–C, ......
-
Collision Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Sols. & Networks Oy
...the plaintiff." Gill v. Nakamura, No. 14-cv-13621, 2015 WL 5074475, at *2 (D. Mass. July 24, 2015) (citing Cordis Corp. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 599 F.2d 1085, 1086 (1st Cir. 1979)). Because the Court has found that it does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant, see Section III.A-C, s......
-
Stars for Art Prod. FZ, LLC v. Dandana, LLC, Civil Action No. 10–10629–JLT.
...Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1352 (3d ed. 2004)). 93. See, e.g., Cordis Corp. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 599 F.2d 1085, 1086–87 (1st Cir.1979); Turnley, 576 F.Supp.2d at 211–12 & n. 6 (noting the split of authority regarding which party carries the burden of ......
-
In re Zte (Usa) Inc.
...proper venue in patent cases on the Plaintiff following a motion by the Defendant challenging venue. See Cordis Corp. v. Cardiac Pacemakers , 599 F.2d 1085, 1086 (1st Cir. 1979) ; Grantham v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc. , 420 F.2d 1182, 1184 (7th Cir. 1969) ; Phillips v. Baker , 121 F.2d 752......
-
Chapter §13.01 U.S. District Courts
...uniformity among the circuits")).[290] ZTE, 890 F.3d at 1013.[291] ZTE, 890 F.3d at 1013–1014 (citing Cordis Corp. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 599 F.2d 1085, 1086 (1st Cir. 1979); Grantham v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 420 F.2d 1182, 1184 (7th Cir. 1969); Phillips v. Baker, 121 F.2d 752, 754–75......