Remington Products Corp. v. American Aerovap, Inc., 110
| Decision Date | 04 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 110,Docket 22124.,110 |
| Citation | 192 F.2d 872 |
| Parties | REMINGTON PRODUCTS CORP. et al. v. AMERICAN AEROVAP, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Morris Relson, New York City (Darby & Darby and Floyd H. Crews, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.
Morris Hirsch, New York City (Arthur B. Colwin, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee-cross-appellant.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Remington Products Corporation, hereinafter called Remington, organized under the laws of New Jersey, and American Aerovap, Inc., a New York corporation, to be called Aerovap, both manufacture and sell in interstate commerce an insecticide vaporizer for the control of insects within enclosed spaces. Aerovap owns Design Patent No. 158,552 for a "Combined Wall Bracket and Vaporizer Casing," Patent No. 2,540,095 for a "Vaporizer Dispenser" and Patent No. 2,541,637 for a "Method of Vaporizing Lindane in Ventilated Rooms."
Alleging that Aerovap had groundlessly accused Remington and its distributors of infringing the above patents and was thereby trying to intimidate them and drive them out of business as well as to induce certain of their key employees and agents to leave their employ, Remington and Electro-Vap Corporation, a Florida corporation which is Remington's Florida distributor, brought this suit against Aerovap for a declaratory judgment holding the above patents invalid or not infringed and to recover damages for unfair competition.
Shortly thereafter Aerovap sued the plaintiff Electro-Vap Corporation, The Porbur Corporation, a Florida corporation which is a user of the Remington vaporizer there, and two other Florida users of the Remington product, in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida for infringement of Patent No. 2,541,637. Porbur Corporation became a party plaintiff in the New York action after the Florida action was begun.
Aerovap's motion for a summary judgment in the court below having been denied, the court enjoined it, and those in privity with it, from prosecuting the Florida suit until final judgment in the New York action, and from representing in any way that the Remington vaporizer is "not reliable or is unsafe." Restraint from threatening customers or prospective customers of Remington and its distributors with suits for infringement of the above patents, and from asserting that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raniere v. Citigroup Inc.
...271, 275 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Motion Picture Lab. Technicians Local 780, 804 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1986); Remington Prods. Corp. v. Am. Aerovap, Inc., 192 F.2d 872, 873 (2d Cir.1951); First City Nat'l Bank, 878 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1989)).II. Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is Denied......
-
Connors v. Lexington Ins. Co.
...(quoting William Gluckin & Co. v. International Playtex Corp., 407 F.2d 177, 178 (2d Cir. 1969) (quoting Remington Products Corp. v. American Aerovap, Inc., 192 F.2d 872 (2d Cir.1951))). The general rule of deference to the first-filed suit, however, is not a rigid, mechanical one. It has c......
-
Hart v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.
...facility." Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. v. U.S. Indus. Chemicals, 140 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1944) ; see Remington Prod. Corp. v. Am. Aerovap, 192 F.2d 872, 873 (2d Cir. 1951) (applying rule to first-filed case where "[a]ll the issues are, or can be, there joined"). Under it, the "first ......
-
National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler
...action in the prosecution of that case. Martin v. Graybar Electric Co., 7 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 202; Remington Products Corp. v. American Aerovap Inc., 2 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 872; Food Fair Stores v. Square Deal Market Co., 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 176, 187 F.2d 219; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. ......
-
Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
...See, e.g., William Gluckin & Co. v. Int’l Playtex Corp., 407 F.2d 177, 179-80 (2d Cir. 1969); Remington Prods. Corp. v. Am. Aerovap, Inc., 192 F.2d 872 (2d Cir. 1951); Mode Art Jewelers Co. v. Expansion Jewelry Ltd, 409 F. Supp. 921, 923 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Polaroid Corp. v. Casselman, 213 F. ......
-
Issues Relating To Parallel Litigation
...e.g ., William Gluckin & Co. v. Int’l Playtex Corp., 407 F.2d 177, 179-80 (2d Cir. 1969); Remington Prods. Corp. v. Am. Aerovap, Inc., 192 F.2d 872 (2d Cir. 1951); Mode Art Jewelers Co. v. Expansion Jewelry, Ltd., 409 F. Supp. 921, 923 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Polaroid Corp. v. Casselman, 213 F. Su......