From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cincinnati Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Vigorith

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Apr 9, 1954
212 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1954)

Opinion

No. 11879.

April 9, 1954.

J. Warren Kinney, Jr., Long Bloom, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Robert Houston French, Howard P. Shuetts, and Joseph F. Zugelter, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellees.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.


This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;

And it appearing that in the matter appealed from the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction of the controversy;

And it appearing that while the complaint prays for declaratory judgment and injunction, the primary and controlling purpose of the action is to secure a judgment directing the appellee to transfer to the appellant the entire legal title in Patent No. 255,975, Cf. Dill Mfg. Co. v. Goff, 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 676, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 672, 63 S.Ct. 77, 87 L.Ed. 540;

And it appearing that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject matter of the controversy, and that courts of a state may try questions of title to patents, New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U.S. 473, 32 S.Ct. 238, 56 L.Ed. 513;

And it appearing that the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, does not confer jurisdiction merely by reason of the existence of a controversy, and jurisdiction must be found in some other statute, Magic Foam Sales Corp v. Mystic Foam Corp., 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 88, 91;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and it is hereby affirmed.


Summaries of

Cincinnati Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Vigorith

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Apr 9, 1954
212 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1954)
Case details for

Cincinnati Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Vigorith

Case Details

Full title:CINCINNATI SHOE MFG. CO. v. VIGORITH et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Apr 9, 1954

Citations

212 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1954)

Citing Cases

T. B. Harms Company v. Eliscu

The plaintiff contends, however, that jurisdiction is preserved by allegations of infringement, actual and…

Rensing v. Turner Aviation Corp.

Therefore, if State courts would not regard a particular foreign corporation as "doing business" in the State…