Assad Abood v. Beldoch-Popper, Inc.

S.D. New York

Assad Abood v. Beldoch-Popper, Inc.

45 F. Supp. 679, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 676, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2602

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 15, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 F. Supp. 679 (Assad Abood v. Beldoch-Popper, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Assad Abood v. Beldoch-Popper, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 679, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 676, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2602 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

GODDARD, District Judge.

Defendant, Beldoch-Popper, Inc., moves -to dismiss the complaint in an action for a declaratory judgment upon two grounds: One — that a patent infringement action brought by the defendant, Beldoch-Popper, Inc., against one Carl Gutman & -Co. Inc., a customer of the plaintiff, involving the same patent and raising the same issues, is now pending in this court.

The patent infringement suit brought by Beldoch-Popper, Inc., is against one of the plaintiff’s customers; not against the present plaintiff, Assad Abood, and a recovery of a judgment in that suit would not preclude the plaintiff therein from instituting another action for damages against the plaintiff in the case at bar. Birdsall v. Shaliol, 112 U.S. 485, 5 S.Ct. 244, 28 L.Ed. 768.

The suit now pending in this court would not therefore dispose of all the issues between the parties in the case at bar. It is true that the plaintiff in this action might intervene in the other action, but he is not compelled to do so. The existence of other remedies does not preclude judgment for declaratory relief. Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Particularly is this so in patent litigation where there is nothing to prevent the holder of the patent from dismissing or delaying his action and in the meanwhile continuing to threaten plaintiff’s customers with suits for infringement. Cf. Lances v. Letz, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 916; Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 104 F.2d 88; E. W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 6 Cir., 102 F.2d 105. Quite reasonably the plaintiff wishes to obtain an early determination of his rights so that any possible damages may be kept at a mini mum.

The other ground urged for dismissal is that another action is pending in the United States District Court for the East ern District of New York involving the same parties, subject matter, and relief. However, this contention need not be considered as it appears that the action in the Eastern District has been dismissed without prejudice.

Motion denied.

Settle order on notice.

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

GODDARD, District Judge.

Defendant, Beldoch-Popper, Inc., moves -to dismiss the complaint in an action for a declaratory judgment upon two grounds: One — that a patent infringement action brought by the defendant, Beldoch-Popper, Inc., against one Carl Gutman & -Co. Inc., a customer of the plaintiff, involving the same patent and raising the same issues, is now pending in this court.

The patent infringement suit brought by Beldoch-Popper, Inc., is against one of the plaintiff’s customers; not against the present plaintiff, Assad Abood, and a recovery of a judgment in that suit would not preclude the plaintiff therein from instituting another action for damages against the plaintiff in the case at bar. Birdsall v. Shaliol, 112 U.S. 485, 5 S.Ct. 244, 28 L.Ed. 768.

The suit now pending in this court would not therefore dispose of all the issues between the parties in the case at bar. It is true that the plaintiff in this action might intervene in the other action, but he is not compelled to do so. The existence of other remedies does not preclude judgment for declaratory relief. Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Particularly is this so in patent litigation where there is nothing to prevent the holder of the patent from dismissing or delaying his action and in the meanwhile continuing to threaten plaintiff’s customers with suits for infringement. Cf. Lances v. Letz, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 916; Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 104 F.2d 88; E. W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 6 Cir., 102 F.2d 105. Quite reasonably the plaintiff wishes to obtain an early determination of his rights so that any possible damages may be kept at a mini mum.

The other ground urged for dismissal is that another action is pending in the United States District Court for the East ern District of New York involving the same parties, subject matter, and relief. However, this contention need not be considered as it appears that the action in the Eastern District has been dismissed without prejudice.

Motion denied.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. Supp. 679, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 676, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/assad-abood-v-beldoch-popper-inc-nysd-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack