A. W. Schnitger v. Canoga Electronics Corp.

462 F.2d 628, 174 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 321, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8899
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 1972
Docket71-2614
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 462 F.2d 628 (A. W. Schnitger v. Canoga Electronics Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A. W. Schnitger v. Canoga Electronics Corp., 462 F.2d 628, 174 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 321, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8899 (9th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Schnitger appeals from a district court order dismissing his complaint for declaratory relief against Canoga Electronics Corporation. We affirm.

Canoga’s subsidiary, Scanbe Manufacturing Corporation, produces electrical circuit board files pursuant to Patent Re. 25,595. Scanbe obtained a judicial decision in 1966 that the patent was valid and that William Tryon, d/b./a Tryon Components Company, was infringing it by making and selling printed circuit card holders and card holder assemblies. The court enjoined Tryon from future infringement.

Schnitger wants to purchase the circuit board files from Tryon, which cannot sell to him because of the 1966 injunction. Hence Schnitger brought this declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial ruling that the Scanbe patent is invalid and that Tryon can sell it despite the 1966 judgment.

Although the district court did not specify the reasons for its dismissal, it appears from the record that Schnitger is in privity with Tryon. The 1966 judgment is res judicata as to Tryon and those who obtain the infringing product from him. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. Williams, 246 F.Supp. 626 (W.D.Ark.1965). That judgment provides a complete defense to Schnit-ger’s declaratory judgment action, and the district court properly dismissed it.

The order of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Technology Licensing Corp. v. Thomson, Inc.
738 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (E.D. California, 2010)
Pall Corp. v. Fisher Scientific Co.
962 F. Supp. 210 (D. Massachusetts, 1997)
Arco Polymers, Inc. v. STUDIENGESELLSCHAFT KOHLE
555 F. Supp. 547 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
Vulcan, Inc. v. Fordees Corporation
658 F.2d 1106 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)
MPL, Inc. v. Cook
90 F.R.D. 570 (N.D. Illinois, 1981)
Vulcan, Inc. v. Fordees Corp.
450 F. Supp. 36 (N.D. Ohio, 1978)
Wallace Clark & Co., Inc. v. Acheson Industries, Inc.
394 F. Supp. 393 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Weston Instruments, Inc. v. Data Technology Corp.
64 F.R.D. 100 (N.D. California, 1974)
Crane Co. v. Aeroquip Corporation
364 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. Illinois, 1973)
Broadview Chemical Corporation v. Loctite Corporation
474 F.2d 1391 (Second Circuit, 1973)
Plumat v. Dunipace
464 F.2d 1402 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
462 F.2d 628, 174 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 321, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-w-schnitger-v-canoga-electronics-corp-ca9-1972.