Thiel v. Electric Sales & Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2689. |
| Citation | 194 F. Supp. 413 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Joseph A. THIEL, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRIC SALES & SUPPLY CO., Inc., and Holub Industries, Inc., Defendants. |
Holcombe & Bomar, Spartanburg, S. C., Alfred W. Petchaft, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
L. Paul Barnes, Spartanburg, S. C., Mann, Brown & McWilliams, Chicago, Ill., for Holub Industries, Inc.
The original complaint in this case charged that Electric Sales and Supply Company, a South Carolina corporation, with its principal place of business at Spartanburg, South Carolina, had infringed United States Patent No. 2,885,169 by the sale of electrical conduit holders covered by the patent and manufactured by Holub Industries, Incorporated. Subsequently the complaint was amended and Holub Industries, Incorporated, was added as a party-defendant and process against it was served upon the Secretary of State of South Carolina under a South Carolina statute. Thereafter Holub Industries, Incorporated, appeared specially and moved the court to quash the service of process and to dismiss the complaint as to it on the ground that it does not do any business and has no regular place of business in South Carolina. The motion was denied and Holub Industries, Incorporated, was given twenty days within which to answer the complaint. D.C., 187 F.Supp. 640. Thereafter on October 25, 1960, Holub Industries, Incorporated, moved the court to amend its order so as to permit an appeal therefrom under the Interlocutory Appeals Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292, by inserting the statement that the order involved a question of law as to which there was a substantial difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate determination of the litigation. I denied this motion on the ground that it was doubtful whether an interlocutory appeal would materially advance the determination of the litigation and upon the further ground that the motion for interlocutory appeal was not filed within ten days after the passage of the order denying Holub Industries, Incorporated's original motion for dismissal. 189 F.Supp. 722.
Having failed to bring the question to the Court of Appeals by interlocutory appeal, Holub Industries, Incorporated, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus based on the contention that under the terms of the patent statute the district court is so patently devoid of...
To continue reading
Request your trial