Telephonics Corp. and Fabrionics Corp. v. Lindly & Co.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 390,Docket 26863.,390 |
| Citation | 291 F.2d 445 |
| Parties | TELEPHONICS CORPORATION AND FABRIONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LINDLY & COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robert E. Burns, New York City (Allan Zelnick, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Walter H. Free, of Brumbaugh, Free, Graves & Donohue, New York City (George W. Whitney and Richard A. Lochner, of Brumbaugh, Free, Graves & Donohue, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before CLARK and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District Judge.
The full details of this forum-shopping contest may be found in the opinion of the district court reported in D. C.E.D.N.Y., 192 F.Supp. 407. For purposes of this appeal the following simplified account will suffice. On October 1, 1959, plaintiffs began this action for, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that defendant's patent No. 2,878,395 was invalid and, in any case, not infringed by the plaintiffs. On October 6, 1959, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a request that defendant's newly filed patent No. 2,907,535 be similarly adjudged invalid. Prior to answering in this case, defendant, on May 20, 1960, brought an action in the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of North Carolina against Glen Raven Knitting Mills, Inc., a customer of plaintiffs, alleging infringement of defendant's patent No. 2,907,535 and seeking an injunction prohibiting continued infringement. Glen Raven, which had an indemnity agreement with plaintiffs, then moved in North Carolina to stay the Glen Raven suit pending the outcome of the present action. This motion was denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs thereupon moved in the court below to enjoin further prosecution of the Glen Raven case in North Carolina, to add Glen Raven as a party plaintiff in the present action, and for certain other relief not here relevant. On January 10, 1961, the court granted the motion, and defendant appeals.
Upon a consideration of the various relevant factors, New York appears to be the more appropriate forum; and the action of the district court is affirmed. The New York action had been pending seven months when the action in North Carolina was started. The plaintiffs and the defendant are New York corporations having their respective principal offices in the Eastern District of New York, and the alleged infringement was committed in the making and selling of defendant's product by plaintiffs at their principal office in this district. The action subsequently begun against plaintiffs' customer in North Carolina was simply an attempt to litigate in another forum a dispute that is basically between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Since the order below permitted Glen Raven to intervene as a party plaintiff in the present action, defendant may have any affirmative relief that is justified against Glen Raven by way of counterclaim here. The fact that the North Carolina action was brought against a defendant not originally a party to the New York action is thus no bar to the grant of the injunction appealed from.
The power of the district court to enjoin unnecessary and wasteful duplication of litigation has long been recognized. See Bechik Products v. Flexible Products...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. Sears
...the stay. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Telephonics Corp. & Fabrionics Corp. v. Lindly & Co., 291 F.2d 445, 447 (2d Cir. 1961); Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F.2d 301, 303 (2d Cir. 1949); Piedmont Shirt Co. v. Snap-Tab Corp., 236 F.Supp.......
-
Amsouth Bank v. Dale
...of procedural fencing that the dispute was one over a Minnesota judgment and involved a Minnesota accident); Telephonics Corp. v. Lindly & Co., 291 F.2d 445, 446-47 (2d Cir.1961) (in weighing propriety of an antisuit injunction entered by district court in declaratory action, noting that Ne......
-
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
...(S.D.N.Y.1955). 4 See Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Telephonics Corp. & Fabrionics Corp. v. Lindly & Co., 291 F.2d 445, 447 (2d Cir. 1961); Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F.2d 301, 303 (2d Cir. 1949); Polaroid Corp. v. Casselman, 213 F.Supp. 379, ......
-
American Household Products v. Evans Manufacturing
...Hoechs Corp., 577 F.2d 725 (table) (3rd Cir. 1978); Telephonics Corp. v. Lindly & Co., 192 F.Supp. 407, 411 (E.D.N.Y.1960), aff'd. 291 F.2d 445 (2nd Cir.1961); Applied Vision, Inc. v. Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., 1997 WL 601425, *3-*4 (N.D.Cal.1997). It is by no means certain that such......
-
Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
...in the first action. See, e.g., Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat’l Bank, 525 F.2d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Telephonics Corp. v. Lindly & Co., 291 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1961); Helene Curtis Indus. v. Sales Affiliates, 199 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1952). 130. See, e.g., Affinity Memory & Micro v. K&Q Enter......