Sherover v. John Wanamaker, New York
| Decision Date | 17 June 1939 |
| Citation | 29 F. Supp. 650 |
| Parties | SHEROVER v. JOHN WANAMAKER, NEW YORK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Lind, Shlivek, Marks & Brin, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Gifford, Scull & Burgess, of New York City (Newton A. Burgess and Henry M. Leigh, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Plaintiff, holder of two patents, sues for an alleged infringement thereof by defendant "selling mattresses embodying the patented inventions". Defendant prior to answering the complaint makes two motions — one under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for a more definite statement of the article or articles alleged to infringe the patent in suit. At the argument it was agreed that plaintiff would satisfy the demand of this motion by stating that "the mattress sold by the defendant under the name of `Royal Foam' infringes the patents in suit."
Defendant's second motion is "to strike or dismiss the Complaint filed herein, because if the type of mattress charged to infringe the patents in suit be the type sold by defendant as Royal Foam rubber mattress, as will more fully appear when plaintiff particularizes in response to the Motion for More Definite Statement filed herein, it will be apparent upon the face of the patents and an inspection of a sample of such Royal Foam mattress, that none of the claims of the patents in suit can possibly be read upon such mattress and that there is, therefore, no infringement."
To that notice of motion defendant adds a statement that defendant is submitting an affidavit and "sample showing the construction of the Royal Foam mattress, both of which are a part of this motion." The said notice further states that the motion to dismiss is made under Rule 12(f), but defendant's brief corrects this to read Rule 12 (b) (6).
I think that defendant has mistaken his remedy. A motion under Rule 12(b) (6) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is limited to the pleading. Plaintiff, in response to the concurrent motion of defendant for a more definite statement, has stated that "the mattress sold by the defendant under the name of `Royal Foam' infringes the patent in suit." This may be considered as an addition to paragraph "4" of the complaint, but that does not help the situation on this motion to dismiss. Even with that addition the complaint states on its face a claim upon which relief can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuhn v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California
...of New York Symposium on Federal Rules (1936) 300-302; McConville v. District of Columbia, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 295; Sherover v. John Wanamaker, D.C., 29 F. Supp. 650; Sarnowski v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.1 But see Alabama Independent Service Station Assn. Inc. v. Shell Petroleum Corp., D.C., 2......
-
United States v. Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, Inc.
...appear in the pleadings. These the Court may not consider on a motion to strike which is limited to the pleadings. Sherover v. John Wanamaker, New York, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 650; Thermo-Plastics Corp. v. International Pulverizing Corp., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 408. No motion has been made to test the ......
- United States Trust Co. of New York v. Sears
-
Monjar v. Higgins
...upon which relief can be granted." Such motion is limited to the pleading and may not be aided by affidavits. Sherover v. John Wanamaker, New York, D.C.N.Y., 1939, 29 F.Supp. 650. Defendant has moved, before answer, "for an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that this court lacks ......