Snap-on Tools Corp., In re, SNAP-ON
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and FRIEDMAN and RICH |
| Citation | 720 F.2d 654,220 USPQ 8 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | SNAP-ON,No. 83-1280 |
| Parties | In reTOOLS CORPORATION, Petitioner. |
Page 654
Federal Circuit.
Page 655
Jon O. Nelson, Robert C. Ryan, and Mark T. Banner, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and FRIEDMAN and RICH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Jerry Clyde Edwards (Edwards) brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on Petition of defendant, Snap-On Tools Corp. (Snap-On). Edwards moved to remand to the state court, and the District Court, without comment or opinion, granted the motion.
Snap-On has petitioned this court for writ of mandamus to compel removal of the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1441(a), (b).
The issue here turns on the nature of the action as established in the complaint. Edwards says that the claims in the complaint are based on common law remedies recognized by Alabama and are not claims arising under the patent laws of the United States, that his claim of patent infringement is merely incidental to his state court claims; and that the state court has jurisdiction to resolve questions arising under the patent laws of the United States when such questions are incidental.
Edwards cites cases in which an assertion of patent infringement is made by a defendant as a defense in a state court action based on state law, or is made in the form of a threat which produced damages that form the basis of the state suit. It is true that state courts may determine issues of patent law in appropriate cases, and that a suit for business damage caused by threats to sue on a patent is not itself a suit under the patent laws, American Well Works v. Layne, 241 U.S. 257, 259, 36 S.Ct. 585, 586, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916), but here it is Edwards who is in fact suing under the patent law. His citations are thus inapt.
Edwards' allegations of patent infringement are not merely incidental. They set forth the underlying wrong on which all his other 'causes of action' rest. His First Cause is an express claim for infringement of his U.S. patent. The additional causes of action, "slander of title, conversion, interference with business and outrage" all arise from Snap-On's alleged patent infringement and its advertisement of the product accused as an infringement. Edwards' claims thus arise under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkendall v. Department of Army, No. 05-3077.
...mandate is the authority to recharacterize pleadings which would improperly evade the intent of Congress."); In re Snap-on Tools Corp., 720 F.2d 654, 655 (Fed.Cir. 1983) ("The issue here turns on the nature of the action as established in the complaint."). Moreover, it is incongruous to pre......
-
Williams v. Secretary of Navy, No. 85-2690
...the district court in determining jurisdiction of an appeal." Maier v. Orr, 754 F.2d 973, 982 (Fed.Cir.1985); In Re Snap on Tools Corp., 720 F.2d 654 As did the plaintiff in Maier v. Orr, supra, Williams: (1) alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1361; (2) added claims for mon......
-
Innotron Diagnostics, In re, No. 111
...F.2d 1428, 221 U.S.P.Q. 1034 (Fed.Cir.1984) (writ denied; no abuse of discretion and not "in aid of" jurisdiction); In re Snap-On Tools, 720 F.2d 654, 220 U.S.P.Q. 8 (Fed.Cir.1983) (writ issued "to aid the jurisdiction of this court."); C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400, 401 (Fed......
-
Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc., No. 84-742
...a diversity case because the district court's jurisdiction was also based on a patent claim under Sec. 1338. In In re Snap-On Tools Corp., 720 F.2d 654, 655, 220 USPQ 8, 9 (Fed.Cir.1983), Mississippi Page 1429 Chemical Corp. v. Swift Agr. Chemicals, 717 F.2d 1374, 1379, 219 USPQ 577, 582 (F......
-
Kirkendall v. Department of Army, No. 05-3077.
...mandate is the authority to recharacterize pleadings which would improperly evade the intent of Congress."); In re Snap-on Tools Corp., 720 F.2d 654, 655 (Fed.Cir. 1983) ("The issue here turns on the nature of the action as established in the complaint."). Moreover, it is incongruous to pre......
-
Williams v. Secretary of Navy, No. 85-2690
...the district court in determining jurisdiction of an appeal." Maier v. Orr, 754 F.2d 973, 982 (Fed.Cir.1985); In Re Snap on Tools Corp., 720 F.2d 654 As did the plaintiff in Maier v. Orr, supra, Williams: (1) alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1361; (2) added claims for mon......
-
Innotron Diagnostics, In re, No. 111
...F.2d 1428, 221 U.S.P.Q. 1034 (Fed.Cir.1984) (writ denied; no abuse of discretion and not "in aid of" jurisdiction); In re Snap-On Tools, 720 F.2d 654, 220 U.S.P.Q. 8 (Fed.Cir.1983) (writ issued "to aid the jurisdiction of this court."); C.P.C. v. Nosco Plastics, Inc., 719 F.2d 400, 401 (Fed......
-
Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc., No. 84-742
...a diversity case because the district court's jurisdiction was also based on a patent claim under Sec. 1338. In In re Snap-On Tools Corp., 720 F.2d 654, 655, 220 USPQ 8, 9 (Fed.Cir.1983), Mississippi Page 1429 Chemical Corp. v. Swift Agr. Chemicals, 717 F.2d 1374, 1379, 219 USPQ 577, 582 (F......