Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1950 |
| Parties | SACHS v. CLUETT, PEABODY & CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Joseph Nemerov, New York City, for plaintiff. John B. Coppola, New York City, of counsel.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for defendants. Edward H. Green, William Piel, Jr., Bruce A. Hecker, all of New York City, of counsel.
The defendants move this Court for the following relief: 1 for an order dismissing the amended complaint on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action; 2 for summary judgment on the ground that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and further that it is barred by the statute of limitations; 3 for summary judgment on the ground that there is an existing final judgment determining the same claim between the parties; and 4 for an order pursuant to 35 U.S.C.A. § 70 awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $5,000 to each of the defendants.
In brief, the amended complaint alleges that the plaintiff, prior to 1921, had invented a process for shrinking cloth and had constructed machinery for the use of said process; that he disclosed it to the defendants for the purpose of testing the process for commercial use, but that the defendants, after testing the process, fraudulently represented that it was not economically useful; that the defendant Cluett fraudulently obtained Letters Patent on the process which it assigned to the corporate defendant; that the plaintiff has been deprived of the use of his process because of the defendants' acts and their expressed intention to claim infringement against anyone the plaintiff might license.
The amended complaint seeks judgment a granting an injunction against defendants' declarations of invention; b declaring plaintiff's right to use the process free from defendants' acts; and c decreeing the cancellation of the Patents for fraud.
Paragraph "First" of the amended complaint reads as follows: "First: The grounds upon which the jurisdiction of this Court depends is that the suit is of a civil nature in equity and arises under the patent laws of the United States and upon the further ground that it is a suit for a declaratory judgment or decree under the Judicial Code and arises from an actual controversy between the parties herein."
It is quite clear that this Court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The suit does not arise under the patent laws of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cresci v. Music Publishers Holding Corporation
...690 (2 Cir., 1948); Eckert v. Braun, 155 F.2d 517 (7 Cir., 1946); Hoyt v. Bates, 81 F. 641 (C.C.D.Mass., 1897); Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 91 F.Supp. 37 (S.D.N.Y. 1950); Walters v. Shari Music Publishing Corp., 193 F.Supp. 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). See also Harrington v. Mure, 186 F.Supp. 6......
-
Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrication Corporation
...not of itself confer subject matter jurisdiction but only a remedy where such jurisdiction independently exists. Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 91 F.Supp. 37 (S.D.N.Y.1950). There being no diversity of citizenship between the parties and no apparent federal question apart from the patent l......
-
De Luxe Game Corp. v. Wonder Products Co.
...or venue provision. Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc., v. Brown & Bigelow, Inc., D.C.S.D. N.Y.1952, 104 F.Supp. 716; Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 91 F.Supp. 37. Section 2201 provides the remedy of declaratory judgment in a case of actual controversy "within its any court of ......
-
Mirarchi v. Porter
...name. Eckert v. Braun, 155 F.2d 517, 518 (7th Cir. 1946); Howard v. Archer, 115 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1940); Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 91 F.Supp. 37, 38 (S.D.N.Y.1950); See also Cummings v. Moore, 202 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. Defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for lac......
-
Religion, the public square, and the presidency.
...(112.) See id. at 13-14. (113.) See Fordham Univ. v. Brown, 856 F. Supp. 684 (D.D.C. 1994). (114.) See Blocker v. Small Bus. Admin., 91 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1996); see also Frank J. Murray, Christian Day Care Center Chief Pursues Suit on SBA Loan Policy, WASH. TIMES, Dec. 2, 1995, at A2, ava......