Patent Royalties Corporation v. Land O'Lakes Creameries, E-7569.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1935
• Docket Number: No. E-7569.,E-7569.
• Citation: 11 F. Supp. 103
• Parties: PATENT ROYALTIES CORPORATION et al. v. LAND O'LAKES CREAMERIES, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

11 F. Supp. 103

PATENT ROYALTIES CORPORATION et al. v. LAND O'LAKES CREAMERIES, Inc., et al.

No. E-7569.

District Court, E. D. New York.

June 12, 1935.

Stephen J. Cox and Charles W. Hull, both of New York City (Charles Neave, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Blair, Curtis & Dunne, of New York City (Robert S. Blair and William T. Kniesner, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc.

BYERS, District Judge.

Motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit for lack of jurisdiction, by the only defendant who was served with process.

That defendant, Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation which in that state acquires dairy products, which it there packs or wraps, and sends to various branches for sale. It has qualified itself to conduct business in the state of New York. In this district, it maintains two places of business, having telephones listed under its name, at 184 South Elliott Place, Brooklyn, and 9302 151st Street, Jamaica. There is a store on the street level at each address, operated by this defendant, with offices above that level. At each address there is a display sign, carrying this defendant's name. A stock of merchandise is carried in each store, of the value of several thousands of dollars, and sales from those stocks are made to retail dealers.

One such sale on April 4, 1935, is presented by the motion papers; i. e., of two cases of eggs, for cash, and is evidenced by a sales slip having this defendant's name and address at the top, and, at the bottom, "Branch Office" (printed) and "184 South Elliott Pl. Brooklyn" (written).

The sale was made in this district, and not at the Minneapolis office. It was a completed transaction here. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co. (C. C.) 118 F. 852.

The places of business of the defendant here are operated and maintained as places where the defendant sells its dairy products to retail dealers, and such places therefore are "regular and established places of business" within this district. Title 28 U. S. C. § 109 (28 USCA § 109).

The defendant argues that, since the dairy products are purchased in Minnesota, it is in that state alone that it is transacting its established business. If that were so, no manufacturing company, for instance, could be sued for patent infringement outside of its home state, although it might maintain several branch establishments at which sales of its products were made. The statute does not require that the whole of a company's business must be duplicated in order that jurisdiction may obtain in a place other than that of habitation.

Obviously part of this...