MECHANICAL PLASTICS v. UNIFAST INDUSTRIES, CV 84-3290.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 84-3290.,CV 84-3290. |
| Citation | 610 F. Supp. 1073 |
| Parties | MECHANICAL PLASTICS CORP., Plaintiff, v. UNIFAST INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Pennie & Edmonds, New York City, for plaintiff.
Fiddler & Levine by Robert W. Fiddler, New York City, for defendant.
This is an action for patent infringement. Defendant has filed a counterclaim, contending that plaintiff's patent is invalid. Plaintiff has moved for leave to amend its complaint so as to charge defendant only with infringing upon Claim 30 of plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff states that plaintiff has determined that defendant is not infringing any other claim in plaintiff's patent. The question therefore arises: "Does this Court continue to have jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim insofar as such counterclaim questions the validity of claims other than Claim 30 in plaintiff's patent?"
The Honorable David F. Jordan, U.S. Magistrate, has issued a Report and Recommendation stating that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the counterclaim (except with respect to Claim 30 of the patent), and that even if the Court possesses jurisdiction the Court should decline as a matter of discretion to render a declaratory judgment.
In Shelcore, Inc. v. Durham Industries, Inc., 745 F.2d 621, 624 (Federal Circuit 1984), the Court stated that a plaintiff may not unilaterally remove the issue of patent validity by dropping an infringement claim where the defendant has raised the issue of patent validity in a counterclaim. The Court relied upon Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359, 363-364, 63 S.Ct. 1115, 1117-1118, 87 L.Ed. 1450 (1943). We respectfully disagree with the Federal Circuit. As Magistrate Jordan points out, in Altvater the defendant paid royalties to plaintiff under a licensing agreement. Defendant's obligation to pay plaintiff depended upon the validity of plaintiff's patent. Consequently, there existed a genuine controversy between plaintiff and defendant implicating the issue of patent validity, quite independent of any claim by plaintiff against defendant for patent infringement. In Shelcore, by contrast, we believe that no genuine controversy over patent infringement existed after plaintiff withdrew its charge of patent infringement against defendant. Despite our agreement with Magistrate Jordan and our disagreement with the Federal Circuit, we believe that we are bound by the Federal Circuit, in light of the fact that any appeal in this case will go to the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We are therefore compelled to hold that this Court may exercise jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim even insofar as such counterclaim questions the validity of claims other than Claim 30 in plaintiff's patent.
Although we are compelled to hold that we have the right to exercise jurisdiction, we nevertheless as a matter of discretion decline to exercise such jurisdiction over defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MECHANICAL PLASTICS v. TITAL TECHNOLOGIES, 92 Civ. 5123 (CLB).
...Inc., 657 F.Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 846 F.2d 78 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Table, Text in WESTLAW); Mechanical Plastics Corp. v. Unifast Indus., Inc., 610 F.Supp. 1073 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); McSherry v. Giannuzzi, 227 U.S.P.Q. (B.N.A.) 868 (Bd. of Pat.App. & Int. 1985), aff'd, 790 F.2d 95 (Fed.Cir.......
-
Integrated Liner Techs., Inc. v. Specialty Silicone Prods., Inc.
...did not withdraw the claims in dispute from the infringement suit until after trial had commenced. Mech. Plastics Corp. v. Unifast Indus. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 1073, 1074 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). In this case, ILT has provided no concrete assurance that it will not pursue any of the unasserted claims ......
- Braderman v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency