Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve Co.

S.D. New York

Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve Co.

208 F. 419, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1230

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 2, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 F. 419 (Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve Co.) 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

Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve Co., 208 F. 419, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1230 (S.D.N.Y. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The suit is the usual one for infringement of patent. The answer sets up various defenses. It also sets up a counterclaim which charges that complainant in combination with others has circulated false statements about defendant’s cleaner and has threatened defendant’s customers with suits which it has had no intention of bringing. It is prayed that further interference of this sort with defendant’s business be enjoined and that it have damages for any loss already sustained by the circulation of these statements and threats. This may or may not be a good cause of action; it may or may not be susceptible of proof; it can hardly be said to arise out of the transaction which is the subject-matter of the suit. But it does fall within the second category of counterclaims allowable under new equity rule 30 (198 Eed. xxvi, 115 C. C. A. xxvi), since it “might be made the subject of an independent suit in equity against the plaintiff.”

The motion to strike out is denied.

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

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The suit is the usual one for infringement of patent. The answer sets up various defenses. It also sets up a counterclaim which charges that complainant in combination with others has circulated false statements about defendant’s cleaner and has threatened defendant’s customers with suits which it has had no intention of bringing. It is prayed that further interference of this sort with defendant’s business be enjoined and that it have damages for any loss already sustained by the circulation of these statements and threats. This may or may not be a good cause of action; it may or may not be susceptible of proof; it can hardly be said to arise out of the transaction which is the subject-matter of the suit. But it does fall within the second category of counterclaims allowable under new equity rule 30 (198 Eed. xxvi, 115 C. C. A. xxvi), since it “might be made the subject of an independent suit in equity against the plaintiff.”

The motion to strike out is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F. 419, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vacuum-cleaner-co-v-american-rotary-valve-co-nysd-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack