From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Independent Pneumatic v. Chicago Pneumatic

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
May 5, 1948
167 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1948)

Opinion

No. 9512.

May 5, 1948.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Philip L. Sullivan, Judge.

Clarence J. Loftus, of Chicago, Ill., and Floyd H. Crews and Raymond G. Mullee, both of New York City, for defendant-appellant.

George N. Hibben and Harry W. Lindsey, Jr., both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MAJOR and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.


This action was brought for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of two patents owned by the defendant. The District Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of venue and granted plaintiff's motion to restrain the prosecution of a subsequent infringement suit on the same patents in Ohio. An appeal has been taken to this court from each of those rulings. The District Court, in connection with its decision, wrote an opinion in which the facts and issues are correctly stated, and in which it has carefully analyzed the law upon which its decision was predicated. This opinion is published in 74 F. Supp. 502. After a careful study of the case, we reach the conclusion that the District Court was correct both in its reasoning and result. Such being the case, this court could serve no good purpose in writing an opinion. We therefore adopt the opinion of the District Court as that of this court.

The order appealed from is affirmed.


Summaries of

Independent Pneumatic v. Chicago Pneumatic

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
May 5, 1948
167 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1948)
Case details for

Independent Pneumatic v. Chicago Pneumatic

Case Details

Full title:INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO…

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: May 5, 1948

Citations

167 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1948)

Citing Cases

Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co.

And if the manufacturer is joined as an unwilling defendant in a forum non conveniens, he has available upon…