Arey v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

N.D. Ohio

Arey v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

11 F.R.D. 209, 88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 347, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3516

District Court, N.D. Ohio·Decided January 29, 1951·No. Civ. No. 25038·Published

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a patent infringement action brought by the owner of the patent. The exclusive licensee of the patent refuses to join as plaintiff and plaintiff now moves to add the licensee as party defendant.

It would appear that the exclusive licensee is a necessary and indispensible party to this action. Since it refuses to join, the licensee may be made a defendant in the action. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule K>, 28 U.S.C.A.

Motion will be sustained.

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

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a patent infringement action brought by the owner of the patent. The exclusive licensee of the patent refuses to join as plaintiff and plaintiff now moves to add the licensee as party defendant.

It would appear that the exclusive licensee is a necessary and indispensible party to this action. Since it refuses to join, the licensee may be made a defendant in the action. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule K>, 28 U.S.C.A.

Motion will be sustained.

Arey v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 11 F.R.D. 209, 88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 347, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3516 (N.D. Ohio 1951).

Pincite

11 F.R.D. 209 (Arey v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.