Home/Seventh Circuit/T. P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Ormco Corporation

T. P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Ormco Corporation

389 F.2d 622, 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 8, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8089
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedFebruary 12, 1968
Docket16364
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 389 F.2d 622 (T. P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Ormco Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
T. P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Ormco Corporation, 389 F.2d 622, 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 8, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8089 (7th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, T. P. Laboratories, Inc., brought its action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging infringement by the defendant-appellee, Ormeo Corporation, of plaintiff’s U. S. Letters Patent 3,085,336 Orthodontic Appliance, an orthodontic lock pin for use with an orthodontic bracket to secure an arch wire to a tooth band in the process of straightening teeth.

The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to satisfy the venue requirements of Title 28, U.S.Code, § 1400(b) 1 and this appeal followed.

The plaintiff asserted and the defendant denied that the defendant had a regular and established place of business in the City of Chicago within the judicial district where suit was filed. The District Court found in favor of the plaintiff on this point. We, however, do not reach that issue as we agree with the District Court that, on the undisputed facts, the defendant has committed no acts of infringement in that judicial district.

The defendant’s sole manufacturing plant is in Glendora, California. It has regional sales offices including an office in Chicago. All orders are accepted and filled in Glendora, California. Traveling salesmen usually bypass the Chicago office and send orders directly to the Glen-dora plant. No sales of the accused lock pins have ever been made in Illinois. Two orders for the pins from out of the state did reach the Chicago office, only one of which (for about $8.00) was filled, directly from California. No samples of the accused pin were ever kept in the Chicago office. No samples were carried by defendant’s salesmen who called on customers in the Northern District of Illinois, nor have sales solicitation, physical demonstration or discussion of the accused pins occurred in the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiff contends that demonstration has occurred because of the illustration of the accused pin in defendant’s *624 catalog which is displayed in its Chicago office, distributed to orthodontists throughout Illinois and which illustrates the use of the accused pin as follows:

*625

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

Related

Liqui-Box Corp. v. Reid Valve Co., Inc.
672 F. Supp. 198 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1987)
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp.
452 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Massachusetts, 1978)
Dual Manufacturing and Engineering, Inc. And the Berkline Corporation v. Burris Industries, Inc.
531 F.2d 1382 (Seventh Circuit, 1976)
Air Factors, Inc. v. Edward Filkins, Inc.
368 F. Supp. 542 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 F.2d 622, 157 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 8, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-p-laboratories-inc-v-ormco-corporation-ca7-1968.