Holub Industries, Inc. v. Wyche, No. 8303.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSOBELOFF, , and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit
Citation290 F.2d 852
Docket NumberNo. 8303.
Decision Date13 May 1961
PartiesHOLUB INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Charles C. WYCHE, United States District Judge, Respondent.

290 F.2d 852 (1961)

HOLUB INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Charles C. WYCHE, United States District Judge, Respondent.

No. 8303.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 18, 1961.

Decided May 13, 1961.


290 F.2d 853

Thomas F. McWilliams, Chicago, Ill. (Mann, Brown & McWilliams, Chicago, Ill., on brief), for petitioner.

Alfred W. Petchaft, St. Louis, Mo. (Neville Holcombe, Spartanburg, S. C., on brief), for respondent.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

SOPER, Circuit Judge.

Holub Industries, Inc., an Illinois corporation, with its principal place of business in Sycamore, Illinois, petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the United States District Judge for the Western District of South Carolina, requiring him to vacate an order passed by him on October 8, 1960, in the case of Thiel v. Electric Sales and Supply Company and Holub Industries, Incorporated, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 640. The burden of the petition is that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner in the suit.

The original complaint charged that Electric Sales, a South Carolina corporation, with its principal place of business at Spartanburg, South Carolina, had infringed United States Patent No. 2,885,169 by the sale of electrical conduit holders covered by the patent and manufactured by Holub. Subsequently the complaint was amended and Holub was added as a party-defendant and process against it was served upon the Secretary of State of South Carolina. Thereafter Holub appeared specially and moved the court to quash the service of process and to dismiss the complaint as to it on the ground that it does not do any business and has no regular place of business in South Carolina. The motion was denied and Holub was given twenty days within which to answer the complaint. Thereafter, on October 25, 1960, Holub moved the court to amend its order so as to permit an appeal therefrom under the Interlocutory Appeals Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, by inserting the statement that the order involved a question of law as to which there was a substantial difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate determination of the litigation. The District Judge denied this motion on the ground that it was doubtful whether an interlocutory appeal would materially advance the determination of the litigation and upon the further ground that the motion for interlocutory appeal was not filed within ten days after the passage of the order denying Holub's original motion for dismissal.

Having failed to bring the question to this court by interlocutory appeal, Holub now raises it by petition for writ of mandamus based on the contention that under the terms of the patent statute the District Court is so plainly devoid of jurisdiction over Holub that the court should be directed to dismiss Holub as party-defendant in the case at this time.

Venue in an action for patent infringement is fixed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which is as follows:

"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 undisputed facts upon which Holub bases its motion to be dismissed as a party-defendant may be summarized as follows. It is a corporation of the State of Illinois where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical and mechanical products. It has no regular or established place of business or office or warehouse of any kind in South Carolina and is not registered to do business in that state. It has no agents located in South Carolina and no bank account or stock of goods in that state. The sale of its products in South Carolina is promoted

290 F.2d 854
by Bennett Rose Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, through its traveling salesmen who visit prospective customers and distribute sales literature issued by Holub. Orders for Holub products are written by Bennett Rose Company and transmitted by mail to Holub for acceptance or rejection. If they are accepted, the merchandise is shipped by common carrier from the Holub plant at Sycamore, Illinois, to the purchaser and the purchaser is billed directly by Holub and payment is transmitted by mail. Bennett Rose Company is paid on a commission basis by Holub and none of its employees has any power to enter into any agreements on Holub's behalf

Upon this state of facts the District Judge noted that Holub has its principal place of business in Illinois and has taken no action to comply with the laws of South Carolina governing foreign corporations doing business in that state. The judge held, however, that the employment of Bennett Rose Company to act for Holub and to solicit orders for goods within the state, as a result of which Holub shipped merchandise to Electric...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-01554-JRG.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • June 29, 2017
    ...suggested, that an established place of business required a physical presence in the district. See, e.g., Holub Indus., Inc. v. Wyche , 290 F.2d 852, 854 (4th Cir. 1961) ; Gen. Radio Co. v. Superior Elec. Co. , 293 F.2d 949, 951 (1st Cir. 1961) ; Phillips v. Baker , 121 F.2d 752, 756 (9th C......
  • Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00442-JRG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • July 19, 2018
    ...and established place of business here . The suit, therefore, cannot be maintained here.") (emphasis added); Holub Indus., Inc. v. Wyche , 290 F.2d 852, 853 (4th Cir. 1961) ("It has no regular or established place of business or office or warehouse of any kind in South Carolina and is not r......
  • Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., Nos. 94-1498
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • April 9, 1996
    ...Schnell v. Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U.S. 260, 262, 81 S.Ct. 557, 559-60, 5 L.Ed.2d 546, 128 USPQ 305, 306 (1961); Holub Indus. v. Wyche, 290 F.2d 852, 854, 129 USPQ 242, 243 (4th Cir.1961). Nevertheless, CBK preemptively opposed such a claim in its answer asserting improper 2 Infringement ......
  • Brevel Products Corp. v. H & B AMERICAN CORPORATION
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 28, 1962
    ...process cannot in effect be substituted for the federally created requirement of a "place of business." Holub Industries, Inc. v. Wyche, 290 F.2d 852 (4th Cir. As seen from the above cases, a regular and established place of business, in the literal, everyday sense, has been almost uniforml......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-01554-JRG.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • June 29, 2017
    ...suggested, that an established place of business required a physical presence in the district. See, e.g., Holub Indus., Inc. v. Wyche , 290 F.2d 852, 854 (4th Cir. 1961) ; Gen. Radio Co. v. Superior Elec. Co. , 293 F.2d 949, 951 (1st Cir. 1961) ; Phillips v. Baker , 121 F.2d 752, 756 (9th C......
  • Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-00442-JRG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • July 19, 2018
    ...and established place of business here . The suit, therefore, cannot be maintained here.") (emphasis added); Holub Indus., Inc. v. Wyche , 290 F.2d 852, 853 (4th Cir. 1961) ("It has no regular or established place of business or office or warehouse of any kind in South Carolina and is not r......
  • Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., Nos. 94-1498
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • April 9, 1996
    ...Schnell v. Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U.S. 260, 262, 81 S.Ct. 557, 559-60, 5 L.Ed.2d 546, 128 USPQ 305, 306 (1961); Holub Indus. v. Wyche, 290 F.2d 852, 854, 129 USPQ 242, 243 (4th Cir.1961). Nevertheless, CBK preemptively opposed such a claim in its answer asserting improper 2 Infringement ......
  • Brevel Products Corp. v. H & B AMERICAN CORPORATION
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 28, 1962
    ...process cannot in effect be substituted for the federally created requirement of a "place of business." Holub Industries, Inc. v. Wyche, 290 F.2d 852 (4th Cir. As seen from the above cases, a regular and established place of business, in the literal, everyday sense, has been almost uniforml......
  • 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