Eckert v. Braun

Decision Date24 May 1946
Docket NumberNo. 8977.,8977.
Citation155 F.2d 517
PartiesECKERT v. BRAUN.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Brennan & Brennan, Martin J. Brennan and Joseph K. Brennan, all of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

Bernard V. Brady and Ira Milton Jones, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.

Before SPARKS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.

BRIGGLE, District Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the District Court summarily dismissing her bill of complaint. She invokes the jurisdiction of the Federal Court on the sole theory that this is a case arising under the patent laws of the United States. The complaint alleges that defendant wrongfully and illegally obtained possession of certain designs, drawings and formulae belonging to plaintiff's deceased husband at the time of his death and that defendant wrongfully used same in a successful application for two patents. Plaintiff prays that defendant be enjoined from making any use of the patents, that they be declared invalid in the name of defendant and that they be declared the property of the plaintiff; that defendant be adjudged a trustee ex maleficio; that the Court adjudge the designs, drawings and formulae to have been wrongfully converted and used by defendant; that defendant be required to account to plaintiff for all profits in the use of same; and that plaintiff be allowed damages for such wrongful conversion and fraud on the part of defendant.

The complaint was met with a motion to dismiss on the ground that it shows upon its face that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. The District Court adopted this view, allowed defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint for the reason that it did not state a case arising under the patent laws of the United States.

We think the District Court was clearly right. The gravamen of plaintiff's charge is that defendant perpetrated a fraud upon her and she seeks to prevent his use of the fruits of the fraud and to have them vested in her. The mere fact that she asks that on account of the fraud the patent be invalidated in the hands of defendant does not bring it within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

In Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., et al., 279 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356, 357, 73 L. Ed. 752, an action was brought in a New York State Court, asking that defendant be adjudged a trustee ex maleficio of an invention and patent issued to him, and asking further relief similar to that asked in the case at bar. The proof established that one Oppenheimer, having conceived the invention, employed Becher as a machinist to construct the machine, and Becher agreed to keep...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Smith v. Dravo Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 11, 1953
    ...citizenship of plaintiffs (citizens of Wisconsin and a Wisconsin corporation) and defendant (a Pennsylvania corporation). Eckert v. Braun, 7 Cir., 155 F.2d 517. Therefore, under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, the law of the forum, Illinois, is determinat......
  • Wells v. Universal Pictures Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 16, 1948
    ...law and equity, the fact that a patent or copyright is incidentally involved does not give federal jurisdiction.2 Thus, in Eckert v. Braun, 7 Cir., 155 F.2d 517 the complaint charged the defendant with fraudulently obtaining a patent on an invention of the plaintiff, and prayed that the pat......
  • Cresci v. Music Publishers Holding Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 19, 1962
    ...patent or a copyright does not confer federal jurisdiction. Wells v. Universal Pictures Co., 166 F.2d 690 (2 Cir., 1948); Eckert v. Braun, 155 F.2d 517 (7 Cir., 1946); Hoyt v. Bates, 81 F. 641 (C.C.D.Mass., 1897); Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 91 F.Supp. 37 (S.D.N.Y. 1950); Walters v. Sha......
  • Muskegon Piston Ring Company v. Olsen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 17, 1962
    ...The defendants cannot sue for a cancellation of the patent on the ground of prior invention. Only the government can do that. (Eckert v. Braun, 155 F.2d 517, 519, C.A.7; United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 128 U.S. 315, 9 S.Ct. 90, 32 L.Ed. 450; United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.,......
  • 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