Crosley Corporation v. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. & MFG. CO.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 1524.,1524. |
| Parties | CROSLEY CORPORATION v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Samuel E. Darby, Jr., and Floyd H. Crews, both of New York City, Alden D. Redfield, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Christy, Parmelee & Strickland, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Brown, Critchlow & Flick and Jo. Baily Brown, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., Victor S. Beam, of New York City, and Carl S. Lloyd, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
The Crosley Corporation, on July 31, 1941, filed a suit for a declaratory judgment in respect to the validity and infringement of some sixteen patents owned by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company. On August 1, 1941, the Westinghouse Company filed a complaint in the Southern District of Ohio, charging infringement by Crosley of said sixteen patents, and a few days later a complaint charging infringement of two other patents lately granted.
Under such circumstances, one unacquainted with the pugnacity of a branch of the legal profession might be led to the opinion that each party would be glad to withdraw his action and proceed at home. Not these litigants! Each is champing the bit to meet its adversary, but not in its own District.
Westinghouse has moved the court to dismiss the plaintiff's action, and the plaintiff has prayed an injunction to restrain the defendant in the instant case and plaintiff in Ohio from proceeding with its case in Ohio.
Prior to the almost simultaneous institution of the actions, Westinghouse had claimed infringement of certain of its patents by Crosley, but over a period of several years had never threatened any of the latter's customers with suit. Nor had it definitely threatened Crosley, but sought an amicable arrangement by license or otherwise. In answer to a number of letters Crosley had indicated a willingness to discuss the claims with Westinghouse, but never had done so. On July 28, 1941, Westinghouse mailed a letter to Crosley, received on July 30, 1941, wherein for the first time it gave notice that it proposed to file immediate suit for infringement of some sixteen patents. On the first day following the receipt of this notification Crosley, without any prior notice, filed its declaratory judgment action in this court. On that day the Westinghouse complaint was in the mails for Cincinnati; with instructions that it be filed immediately.
As a general proposition, in all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. CO-Two Fire Equipment Co., 10302.
...District of Pennsylvania to have sixteen patents, which Westinghouse asserted Crosley had infringed, declared invalid and not infringed. 43 F. Supp. 690. In an obvious race to the court house, one day later Westinghouse filed three suits against Crosley in an Ohio District Court, charging i......
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land