Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1936 |
| Citation | 15 F. Supp. 663 |
| Parties | LINK-BELT CO. v. DORR CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Donald M. Carter (of Parker & Carter), of Chicago, Ill., and Charles F. Richards (of Richards, Layton & Finger), of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
E. Ennalls Berl. (of Ward & Gray), of Wilmington, Del., and William H. Davis and Charles W. Riley (of Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds), both of New York City, for defendant.
On Petition for Rehearing.
This is a motion for a preliminary injunction by Link-Belt Company, herein called "Link-Belt" against the Dorr Company, Inc., herein called "Dorr." February 6, 1936, Link-Belt filed in this court its bill of complaint and petition for declaratory judgment praying, inter alia, that the court adjudge invalid three patents of Dorr and all the claims of each of said patents. March 24, 1936, Dorr brought three suits against Link-Belt, a corporation of the state of Illinois, in the Northern District, Eastern Division, of Illinois, charging infringement by Link-Belt of the three Dorr patents above mentioned.
By this motion Link-Belt seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Dorr from prosecuting the three suits in Illinois and staying all action in those suits until the petition for declaratory judgment is disposed of.
Congress has provided that patent owners may bring suit for infringement in the District Courts of the United States "in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant * * * shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business." Jud. Code § 48, 28 U.S.C.A. § 109. The present motion seeks to deprive Dorr of this statutory right. It is clear that the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act (Jud.Code § 274d, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400) does not deprive a patent owner of his right to sue in the district of which a defendant is an inhabitant.
The motion must be denied.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Upon petition for rehearing of motion for preliminary injunction plaintiff asserts the court erred (1) in holding that defendant had a statutory right to bring suit against plaintiff in Illinois, and (2) in not holding that defendant waived the right to have the issues of this case tried in Illinois by entering a general appearance in this suit before suit was brought in Illinois. Both points are without merit.
After service of subpœna here defendant entered a general appearance recognizing the jurisdiction of this court. Such an appearance per se can have no effect upon the right of defendant under the laws of the United States to bring an infringement suit against plaintiff in another jurisdiction.
The suit in Illinois was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. Dempster Bros.
...liable to defendants. In connection with the first theory, careful study has been given to the line of cases including Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Company, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 663; Meinecke et al. v. Eagle Company, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 523; Stadium Manufacturing Company v. Plymouth Corporation, D.C., 24......
-
Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.
...for infringement? The district courts have generally sanctioned such a counterclaim in suits for patent infringement. Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co., D.C., 15 F.Supp. 663; Meinecke v. Eagle Druggists Supply Co., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 523; Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc., D.C......
-
Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.
...to a counterclaim in a suit involving the validity of a patent. Burry Ry. Supply Co. v. Laughlin, 7 Cir., 297 F. 938; Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co., D.C., 15 F.Supp. 663; Meinecke v. Eagle Druggists Supply Co., D.C., 19 F.Supp. 523; Asplin v. Scanlan, 37 U. S. P. Q. 261; Stadium Mfg. Co. v. Ply......
-
Benz v. J. Laskin & Sons Corporation
...The cases supporting defendant's contention are: Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 104 F.2d 88; Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co., Inc., D.C. Del., 15 F.Supp. 663; Meinecke et al. v. Eagle Druggists Supply Co., Inc., D.C.S.D.N. Y., 19 F.Supp. 523; Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. Johnson, ......