Ex Parte Pharma-Craft Corporation

236 F.2d 911, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 249, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5356
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 16, 1956
Docket16227
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 236 F.2d 911 (Ex Parte Pharma-Craft Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Pharma-Craft Corporation, 236 F.2d 911, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 249, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5356 (5th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pharma-Craft Corporation is the as-signee of a patent of an anti-perspirant deodorant stick. It brought suit in the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against F. W. Woolworth Co. and Associated Products, Inc. alleging infringement by Woolworth in the sale in Macon, Georgia, and elsewhere, of products infringing the patent, and by Associated in selling infringing products to Woolworth. Injunction, damages and costs are sought. Woolworth, doing business in the district where sued, was served with process. Associated is not within the district and has not been served. Woolworth filed a motion to transfer the cause under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) to the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. Affidavits in support of and in opposition to the motion were filed. In an opinion by the *912 District Judge the contentions were reviewed and analyzed; Pharma-Craft Corp. v. F. W. ’Woolworth Co., 144 F. Supp. 298. The District Court: determined that it is for the convenience of parties and in the interest of justice that the cause be transferred to, the court in Illinois. An order of transfer was entered. The plaintiff, Pharma-Craft Corporation, has filed, in this Court and we now consider its motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the District Court to vacate its order of transfer.

As in Ex parte Chas. Pfizer, & Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 1955, 225 F.2d 720, the District Court considered all pertinent facts, properly construed the statute and did not abuse its discretion. The rule- announced in that case governs here.

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is

Denied.

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

Related

Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.
90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Texas, 2000)
In Re McClelland Engineers, Inc.
742 F.2d 837 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
In Re Castanho
650 F.2d 546 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Castanho v. Jackson Marine, Inc.
650 F.2d 546 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
In Re McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
647 F.2d 515 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Blankenship v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
460 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Mississippi, 1978)
Hall v. Kittay
396 F. Supp. 261 (D. Delaware, 1975)
Grey v. Continental Marketing Associates, Inc.
315 F. Supp. 826 (N.D. Georgia, 1970)
Deepwater Exploration Co. v. Andrew Weir Insurance
167 F. Supp. 185 (E.D. Louisiana, 1958)
Ex Parte John F. Blaski
245 F.2d 737 (Fifth Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 F.2d 911, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 249, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-pharma-craft-corporation-ca5-1956.