Kerotest Mfg Co v. Fire Equipment Co

Decision Date02 January 1952
Docket NumberNo. 180,C-O-TWO,180
Citation96 L.Ed. 200,342 U.S. 180,72 S.Ct. 219
PartiesKEROTEST MFG. CO. v. FIRE EQUIPMENT CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Walter J. Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.

Mr. R. Morton Adams, New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The C-O-Two Fire Equipment Company, the respondent here, owns two patents, one issued on November 23, 1948, and the other reissued on August 23, 1949, for squeezegrip values and discharge heads for portable fire extinguishers. C-O-Two, incorporated in Delaware, has offices in Newark, New Jersey. On January 17, 1950, it commenced in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois an action against the Acme Equipment Company for 'making and causing to be made and selling and using' devices which were charged with infringing C-O-Two's patents.

On March 9, 1950, the petitioner Kerotest began in the District Court of Delaware this proceeding against C-O-Two for a declaration that the two patents sued on in the Illinois action are invalid and that the devices which Kerotest manufactures and supplies to Acme, the Illinois defendant, do not infringe the C-O-Two patents. Kerotest, a Pennsylvania corporation, has its offices in Pittsburgh, but was subject to service of process in Illinois. C-O-Two on March 22, 1950, filed an amendment to its complaint joining Kerotest as a defendant in the Illinois action.

In Delaware, C-O-Two moved for a stay of the declaratory judgment action and Kerotest sought to enjoin C-O-Two from prosecuting the Illinois suit 'either as against Kerotest alone, or generally, as (the Delaware District Court might) deem just and proper.' The District Court stayed the Delaware proceeding and refused to enjoin that in Illinois, subject to reexamination of the questions after 90 days. 85 U.S.P.Q. 185. On appeal by Kerotest, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the District Court had not abused its discretion in staying the Delaware action for 90 days to permit it to get 'more information concerning the controverted status of Kerotest in the Illinois suit.' 182 F.2d 773, 775.

During the 90-day period the Illinois District Court allowed the joinder of Kerotest as a defendant, denying a motion by Acme to stay the Illinois proceeding pending disposition of the Delaware suit, and Kerotest made a general appearance. After 90 days both parties renewed their motions in Delaware, with Kerotest this time asking that C-O-Two be enjoined from prosecuting the Illinois suit only as to Kerotest. The District Court, a different judge sitting, enjoined C-O-Two from proceeding in the Illinois suit against Kerotest, and denied the stay of the Delaware action, largely acting on the assumption that rulings by its own and other Courts of Appeals required such a result except in 'exceptional cases,' since the Delaware action between C-O-Two and Kerotest was commenced before Kerotest was made a defendant in the Illinois suit. 92 F.Supp. 943. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, saying in part: '* * * the whole of the war and all the parties to it are in the Chicago theatre and there only can it be fought to a finish as the litigations are now cast. On the other hand if the battle is waged in the Delaware arena there is a strong probability that the Chicago suit nonetheless would have to be proceeded with for Acme is not and cannot be made a party to the Delaware litigation. The Chicago suit when adjudicated will bind all the parties in both cases. Why, under the circumstances, should there be two litigations where one will suffice? We can find no adequate reason. We assume, of course, that there will be prompt action in the Chicago theatre.' 189 F.2d 31, 34; 89 U.S.P.Q. 411, 414.

A petition for rehearing was granted and the Court of Appeals, the seven circuit judges sitting en banc, in an expanded opinion from which two judges dissented, adhered to the views of the court of three judges. 189 F.2d 31. Inasmuch as a question of importance to the conduct of multiple litigation in the federal judicial system was involved, we granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 810, 72 S.Ct. 48.

The Federal Declaratory Judgments Act,1 facilitating as it does the initiation of litigation by different parties to many-sided transactions, has created complicated problems for coordinate courts.2 Wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation, does not counsel rigid mechanical solution of such problems. The factors relevant to wise administration here are equitable in nature. Necessarily, an ample degree of discretion, appropriate for disciplined and experienced judges, must be left to the lower courts. The conclusion which we are asked to upset derives from an extended and careful study of the circumstances of this litigation. Such an estimate has led the Court of Appeals twice to conclude that all interests will be best served by prosecution of the single suit in Illinois. Even if we had more doubts than we do about the analysis made by the Court of Appeals, we would not feel justified in displacing its judgment with ours.3

It was strongly pressed upon us that the result below may encourage owners of weak patents to avoid real tests of their patents' validity by successive suits against customers in forums inconvenient for the manufacturers, or selected because of greater hospitality to patents. Such apprehension implies a lack of discipline and of disinterestedness on the part of the lower courts, hardly a worthy or wise basis for fashioning rules of procedure. It reflects an attitude against which we were warned by Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the whole Court, likewise in regard to a question of procedure: 'Universal distrust creates universal incompetence.' Graham v. United States, 231 U.S. 474, 480, 34 S.Ct. 148, 151, 58 L.Ed. 319. If in a rare instance a district judge abuses the discretionary authority the want of which precludes an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1091 cases
  • Kun v. Shuman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 16 Junio 2015
    ...govern. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)). "Generally, as between state and federal courts, the rule is that 'the pendency of an action in the state court is no ......
  • Sierra Club v. Hobet Mining Llc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 12 Julio 2010
    ...of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation[,]” id. (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952)), may warrant abstention. When conducting a Colorado River analysis, a court first determines whether stat......
  • The Hipage Co., Inc. v. ACCESS2GO, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 20 Noviembre 2008
    ...to wise administration here [in the context of declaratory judgments] are equitable in nature." Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952). For example, the Middle District of North Carolina collected cases and observed that "a balance......
  • Ferrara v. Ryen Munro & Tripping Gnome Farm, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 23 Marzo 2018
    ...a proceeding rests within a district judge's discretion." Adam, 950 F.2d at 92 (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C–O–Two Fire Equip. Co. , 342 U.S. 180, 183–84, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952) ). The case at bar is not such a case. Rather, the action before me is in a federal court, and the pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Forum shopping for arbitration decisions: federal courts' use of antisuit injunctions against state courts.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 147 No. 1, November 1998
    • 1 Noviembre 1998
    ...Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)) ("Although this case falls within none of the abstention categories, there are principles unrelated to considerations of proper ......
  • Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • 1 Enero 2014
    ...361 (1951) (Frankfurter, J. concurring in result)). 98. Id. at 824. 99. Id. at 817 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 221 (1952)). 100. Id. at 818. 101. See, e.g., Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 673 F.3d 84, 100 (2d......
  • Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...from ‘the vexation of concurrent litigation over the same subject matter.’” Id . (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952); Adam v. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1991)). In re MF Global Holdings, Ltd., discussed above, is illustrative. There, the c......
  • Judicial Abstinence: Ninth Circuit Jurisdictional Celibacy for Claims Brought Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 27-02, December 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...(quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813). 93. 424 U.S. 800. 94. Id. at 817 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 95. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817-19. 96. 437 U.S. 655, 665-67(1978). 97. Id. at 664. 98. Id. at 662 (quoting McClellan v. Carland, 217 U......
  • 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