Transmirra Products Corp. v. Magnavox Co.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1953 |
| Parties | TRANSMIRRA PRODUCTS CORP. et al. v. MAGNAVOX CO., Limited. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Aronstein & Aronstein, New York City, for plaintiff.
Gallop, Climenko & Gould, New York City, for defendant.
Defendant moves to quash the return of summons and for dismissal on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and in the alternative moves for a transfer of the action to the Northern District of Indiana on the ground that venue has been improperly laid in this district. The complaint alleges a cause of action for patent infringement.
The defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electronic equipment and maintains its home office at Fort Wayne, Indiana. It also leases an office in New York City, paying the rent from Fort Wayne. The company keeps no stock of its products at its New York office or at any other place in this district. The local office is headquarters for a divisional sales manager, four salesmen, two field service engineers, a secretary, a stenographer and an expediter. The duties of the field service engineers are principally to teach dealers' service men how to service defendant's product. The duties of the expediter are to follow up on the purchase of materials from other manufacturers whenever any delays occur in delivery to the company outside of this district. The salesmen solicit orders which are accepted at the home office in Indiana, and the products delivered in this district go to dealers for the purpose of resale. All collections are made by the company directly from its Fort Wayne office.
On two occasions, one before and one after the commencement of this action, the defendant participated in trade shows of the National Association of Music Merchants, in this district. The instruments displayed were shipped directly from an Indiana warehouse to the New York City hotel where the shows were held, and upon completion of the shows, were returned there. The display of the instruments was supervised by members of the advertising department of the company, not attached to the New York City office, who came here specifically for that purpose, and the exhibits were manned by representatives of the company's sales department.
The first issue presented is whether the activities of the defendant foreign corporation conducted within the State constitute "doing business" so as to render it amenable to process. The standard for the resolution of this issue is laid down in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, and it is the systematic and regular nature of the activities as distinguished from sporadic, casual or irregular. Clearly the standard has been met; unquestionably there has been a sufficient showing of a systematic, regular and continuous course of business activity here on behalf of the defendant. See Allegue v. Gulf & South American S. S. Co., D. C., 103 F.Supp. 34; and see French v. Gibbs Corp., 2 Cir., 189 F.2d 787, 789. "* * * continuous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corporation, 17491.
...D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 128 F.Supp. 669; London's, Inc. v. Mack Shirt Corp., D.C.D.Mass.1953, 114 F. Supp. 883; Transmirra Products Corp. v. Magnavox Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 110 F. Supp. 676; Healing v. Isbrandtsen Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1952, 109 F.Supp. 605; Ruffner v. Cunard S.S. Co., 94 W.Va. 211, 1......
-
Watsco, Inc. v. Henry Valve Company
...and, in any event, an amendment to conform to the evidence is possible at trial. Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(b).7 See Transmirra Prod. Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 110 F.Supp. 676, 678 (S.D.N.Y.1953). The defendant should be cognizant that the court, at this juncture, is not passing on the merits of the pla......
-
Union Asbestos & Rubber Company v. Evans Products Company
...part of a sales effort. For example, the district courts have found infringing "use" sufficient for venue in Transmirra Prod. Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 110 F.Supp. 676 (S.D.N.Y.1953), where defendant displayed its products in two trade shows; in Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Brown & Bigelow,......
-
Otto v. Koppers Company
...Frank Adams, D.C.N.Y.1951, 100 F.Supp. 8; Ronson Art Metal Works v. Brown & Bigelow, D.C.N.Y.1952, 104 F.Supp. 716; Transmirra v. Magnavox, D.C.N.Y.1953, 110 F.Supp. 676. The Court's attention has been directed to a decision of the Honorable Sterling Hutcheson, District Judge for the Easter......