Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Johnson Heater Corp.

Decision Date24 January 1974
Docket Number3-73-Civ-313.
Citation370 F. Supp. 806
PartiesRHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a California corporation, and Giant Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON HEATER CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

George F. McGunnigle, Jr., Leonard, Street & Deinard, Minneapolis, Minn., and George B. Newitt and Jon O. Nelson, Molinaire, Allegretti, Newitt & Witcoff, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Cecil S. Schmidt, Merchant, Gould, Smith & Edell, Saint Paul, Minn., and Cesari & McKenna, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DEVITT, Chief Judge.

In this declaratory judgment and unfair competition action, defendant moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 on the grounds that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant and that venue is improperly laid in this judicial district. Plaintiff seeks (1) a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 of patent invalidity and non-infringement with regard to the manufacturing of certain space heating equipment for commercial and industrial use and (2) a judgment for damages which have resulted from the alleged unfair competition on the part of defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction for the declaratory judgment count exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Subject matter jurisdiction for the unfair competition count exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (b). For the reasons expressed below, the Court is of the opinion that defendant's motion to dismiss should be granted.

Plaintiffs allege that this Court may assume personal jurisdiction over the nonresident-defendant under the Minnesota long-arm statute, Minn.Stat.Ann. § 543.19 (Supp.1973), which provides in pertinent part:

(1) As to a cause of action arising from any acts enumerated in this subdivision, a court of this state with jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise personal jurisdiction over any foreign corporation or any nonresident individual, or his personal representative, in the same manner as if it were a domestic corporation or he were a resident of this state. This section applies if, in person or through an agent, the foreign corporation or nonresident individual:
(a) Owns, uses, or possesses any real or personal property situated in this state, or
(b) Transacts any business within the state . . .
. . . . . .

First, plaintiffs argue that a letter sent by defendant to plaintiff-Rheem in Minnesota constitutes the use or possession of personal property in Minnesota within the meaning of § 543.19(1) (a). Although a letter sent to a corporation in Minnesota which contains an allegation of patent infringement and a threat of enforcement may constitute the use or possession of personal property under the long-arm statute, Imperial Products, Inc. v. Zuro, 176 U.S.P.Q. 172, 175 (D.Minn.1971), the letter sent by defendant did not contain either an allegation of infringement or a threat of enforcement. It was merely a letter to inform plaintiff-Rheem of the patent in an effort to prevent possible "innocent infringement." The Court finds that defendant does not own, use, or possess property in Minnesota which is the subject of this claim, and, therefore, in personam jurisdiction does not exist under § 543.19(1)(a).

Second, plaintiffs argue that the letter sent by defendant to plaintiff-Rheem constitutes the transaction of business in Minnesota within the meaning of § 543.19(1)(b). Although the Eighth Circuit has recently held that a letter sent to a corporation in Minnesota which contains an allegation of patent infringement and threat of enforcement constitutes the transaction of business under the long-arm statute, B & J Manufacturing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Nova Biomedical Corp. v. Moller, s. 80-1083
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 8, 1980
    ...Inc., 192 U.S.P.Q. 346, 347-48 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (alternative holding), or have construed it narrowly. See Rheem Manuf. Co. v. Johnson Heater Corp., 370 F.Supp. 806, 808 (D.Minn.1974) (alternative holding). In other cases involving mailed charges of patent infringement, courts have found the d......
  • Cryomedics, Inc. v. Spembly, Limited
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 11, 1975
    ...particular reason to know where in the United States such sales would be solicited and consummated. Compare Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Johnson Heater Corp., 370 F.Supp. 806 (D.Minn.1974), with SCM Corp. v. Brother International Corp., 316 F.Supp. 1328 (S.D.N.Y.1970). Probably the better course would......
  • RED RIVER TRANSPORT, ETC. v. Custom Airmotive, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • September 9, 1980
    ...reliance on defendant's advertising brochures insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction); Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Johnson Heater Corp., 370 F.Supp. 806 (D.Minn.1974) (limited advertising in two trade publications insufficient); Sanders v. Wiltemp Corp., 465 F.Supp. 71 (S.D.N.Y.1979......
  • Lubrizol Corp. v. Neville Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • June 27, 1978
    ...(S.D.N.Y.1974); Scott Paper Company v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 184, 189 (D.Del.1974); Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Johnson Heater Corp., 370 F.Supp. 806, 809 (D.Minn.1974).6 Having concluded that "doing business" within Section 1391(c) requires more than amenability to service ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT