Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co.

D. Delaware

Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co.

15 F. Supp. 663, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2088

CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware

DecidedMay 28, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 15 F. Supp. 663 (Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Link-Belt Co. v. Dorr Co., 15 F. Supp. 663, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2088 (D. Del. 1936).

Pincite

Opinions

NIELDS, District Judge.

This is a motion for a preliminary injunction by Link-Belt Company, herein called “Link-Belt” against the Dorr Company, Inc., herein called “Dorr.” February 6, 1936, Link-Belt filed in this court its bill of complaint and petition for declaratory judgment praying, inter alia, that the court adjudge invalid three patents of Dorr and all the claims of each of said patents. March 24, 1936, Dorr brought three suits against Link-Belt, a corporation of the state of Illinois, in the Northern District, Eastern Division, of Illinois, charging infringement by Link-Belt oí the three Dorr patents above mentioned.

By this motion Link-Belt seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Dorr from prosecuting the three suits in Illinois and staying all action in those suits until the petition for declaratory judgment is disposed of.

Congress has provided that patent owners may bring suit for infringement in the District Courts of the United States “in the. district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant * * * shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business.” Jud. Code § 48, 28 U.S.C.A. § 109. The present motion seeks to deprive Dorr of this statutory right. It is clear that the Federal [664]*664Declaratory Judgments Act (Jud.Code § 274d, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400) does not deprive a patent owner of his right to sue in the district of which a defendant is an inhabitant.

The motion must be denied.

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

NIELDS, District Judge.

This is a motion for a preliminary injunction by Link-Belt Company, herein called “Link-Belt” against the Dorr Company, Inc., herein called “Dorr.” February 6, 1936, Link-Belt filed in this court its bill of complaint and petition for declaratory judgment praying, inter alia, that the court adjudge invalid three patents of Dorr and all the claims of each of said patents. March 24, 1936, Dorr brought three suits against Link-Belt, a corporation of the state of Illinois, in the Northern District, Eastern Division, of Illinois, charging infringement by Link-Belt oí the three Dorr patents above mentioned.

By this motion Link-Belt seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Dorr from prosecuting the three suits in Illinois and staying all action in those suits until the petition for declaratory judgment is disposed of.

Congress has provided that patent owners may bring suit for infringement in the District Courts of the United States “in the. district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant * * * shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business.” Jud. Code § 48, 28 U.S.C.A. § 109. The present motion seeks to deprive Dorr of this statutory right. It is clear that the Federal [664]*664Declaratory Judgments Act (Jud.Code § 274d, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400) does not deprive a patent owner of his right to sue in the district of which a defendant is an inhabitant.

The motion must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. Supp. 663, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/link-belt-co-v-dorr-co-ded-1936.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack