Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. CO-Two Fire Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 10200.,10200. |
| Citation | 182 F.2d 773 |
| Parties | KEROTEST MFG. CO. v. C-O-TWO FIRE EQUIPMENT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Walter J. Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John F. C. Glenn, Pittsburgh, Pa., Aaron Finger, Wilmington, Del., Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Del., Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll, Pittsburgh, Pa., Blenko, Hoopes, Leonard & Glenn, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
R. Morton Adams, New York City (Pennie, Edmonds, Morton & Barrows, New York City, Arthur G. Connolly, Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before MARIS, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying a preliminary injunction sought to restrain the prosecution of a suit pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The controversy concerns the validity and alleged infringement of two patents. It is the contention of C-O-Two Fire Equipment Company, a Delaware corporation, that in the manufacture and sale of certain fire extinguishing equipment Kerotest Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, has infringed its patents. Kerotest filed the present suit in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment decreeing the invalidity of the patents in question and thereafter moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain C-O-Two from going forward with certain litigation in Illinois concerning the same patents. C-O-Two countered with a motion for a stay of the Delaware proceedings until after final determination of the Illinois suit. The district court disposed of both motions by an order (1) denying the motion for preliminary injunction, (2) staying the Delaware proceedings for 90 days and (3) expressly according to each party the privilege of renewing its motion without prejudice upon the expiration of the 90-day period.
The order is based upon findings of fact which are consistent with affidavits properly before the court. The district court found that the Illinois suit, charging patent infringement, was filed January 11, 1950, by C-O-Two against Acme Equipment Co., an Illinois corporation; that it involved the patents later brought into controversy in this Delaware suit; that some of the structures accused as infringement in the Illinois suit were manufactured by Kerotest and sold to Acme; that Kerotest commenced the present suit on March 9, 1950; that on March 22, 1950 C-O-Two filed an amendment to its Illinois complaint for the purpose of adding as a party defendant Kerotest, which is licensed to do business and has a resident agent in Illinois; that no answer had been filed in either suit; that there was pending in the Illinois suit a motion by Acme to stay the Illinois proceedings until after the disposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ostow & Jacobs, Inc. v. Morgan-Jones, Inc.
...of Congress relating to patents." A motion has been made for reargument of this motion. The facts in Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 3 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 773, same case, 3 Cir., 189 F.2d 31, affirmed 1952, 342 U.S. 180, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 are somewhat sim......
-
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. CO-Two Fire Equipment Co., 10302.
...had not been filed a date for trial of the Chicago suit had already been set. Kerotest appealed to this court which affirmed the judgment. 182 F.2d 773. By the time the case was argued on appeal, Acme's motion for a stay in the Chicago litigation had been denied and Kerotest had moved the U......
-
Kerotest Mfg Co v. Fire Equipment Co
...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 th......
-
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. CO-Two Fire Equipment Co.
...from the order of this court dated April 28, 1950. The Court of Appeals for this Circuit on June 16, 1950, affirmed this court's judgment. 182 F.2d 773. The basic issue now before this court seems to be whether, as regards Kerotest, this present action or the Chicago action has priority in ......