Munters Corp. v. Burgess Industries Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1073,1073 |
| Citation | 535 F.2d 210 |
| Parties | 1976-2 Trade Cases 60,986 MUNTERS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BURGESS INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Buffalo Forge Company, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 76-7082. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Joseph Burns, New York City (Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer, Martin J. Neville, New York City, of counsel), and McGrath, Meyer, Lieberman & Lipp, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief, for Buffalo Forge Co.
John C. Vassil, Morgan, Finnegan, Pine, Foley & Lee, New York City, and James A. Knox and George W. Fazakerly, Vial, Hamilton Koch, Tubb, Knox & Stradley, Dallas, Tex., on the brief, for Burgess Industries, Inc.
Before SMITH, MANSFIELD and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
Munters, licensee of patents 1 on a filling material used in cooling equipment, granted an exclusive sub-license to Buffalo Forge, designer and manufacturer of evaporative coolers, for use of the fill in evaporative coolers of gas turbines of stated capacities. Burgess, manufacturer of complete cooling systems including evaporative coolers, a purchaser of the fill from Munters for other uses, sought to use the fill in applications similar to that of Buffalo Forge, and threatened antitrust litigation. In a declaratory judgment action by Munters against Buffalo Forge and Burgess, Burgess sought and obtained a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles H. Tenney, Judge, permitting its proposed use of the fill pendente lite on posting of a $25,000 bond. Buffalo Forge appeals. We find error in the grant of injunctive relief at this stage on the showing made here and reverse for vacation of the injunction.
The injunction issued on a finding that the questions raised are serious enough to present fair ground for litigation and that the balance of the equities tipped decidedly in favor of preliminary relief for Burgess since denial would likely cause long-lasting harm to Burgess' good will which would outweigh possible harm to Munters or Buffalo Forge. 2
With the first proposition, fair ground for litigation, there is no real quarrel. The scope of the patent monopoly and its relation to antitrust principles clearly pose serious questions. 3
We fail to find in this record, however, substantial support for the court's conclusion that the balance of the equities tipped decidedly in favor of Burgess. 4
The Munters fill is apparently looked upon by industry as an improvement over other types of fill at present widely used in similar installations. Burgess, which knew of the exclusive license long before it entered into the contracts, has accepted orders from four customers for complete cooling systems for gas turbines incorporating evaporative air coolers designed to use the Munters fill, at a total price of some $230,000. Additional orders might be expected over a period of some months. Inability to complete the orders using Munters fill without purchasing and incorporating Buffalo Forge air coolers would cause a loss of some profits, but there is no reason to believe that Buffalo Forge or Munters could not respond in damages if Burgess succeeds in the action on the merits. Moreover, the injunction will cause a loss of possible business and good will to Buffalo Forge, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of N.Y. v. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n
...on a written record consisting of pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other documents. See, e. g., Munters Corp. v. Burgess Industries, Inc., 535 F.2d 210, 211 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1976); San Filippo v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 525 F.2d 508, 511 (2d Cir. 1975); Fur Informatio......
-
Munters Corp. v. Burgess Industries Inc.
...that the balance of equities tipped decidedly in favor of Burgess, reversed for vacation of the injunction. Munters Corp. v. Burgess Industries, Inc., 535 F.2d 210 (2d Cir. 1976). Reopening the Following the brief trial, Buffalo Forge moved to reopen the record to permit the submission of a......
-
Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
...894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, supra, 550 F.2d at 750-51; cf. Munters Corp. v. Burgess Industries, Inc., 535 F.2d 210, 211 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1976). In short, while I do not disagree with the reversal for failure to show a genuine threat of irreparable inju......
-
Forts v. Ward, AFL-CIO
...Diversified Mortgage Investors v. U. S. Life Title Ins. Co., 544 F.2d 571, 577 (2d Cir. 1976); Munters Corp. v. Burgess Indus., Inc., 535 F.2d 210, 211 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1976); San Filippo v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners, 525 F.2d 508, 511 (2d Cir. 1975); Dopp v. Franklin Nat'l Bank, 4......