From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudolph v. Eisen

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Apr 3, 1941
38 F. Supp. 868 (D.N.J. 1941)

Opinion

No. 1127.

April 3, 1941.

William Gallner, of Bridgeton, N.J. (William S. Hodges, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff.

E. Francis Wentworth, Jr., of Newark, N.J. (Harry Price, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.


Patent infringement suit by Maurice L. Rudolph, trading as Rudolph Poultry Equipment Company, against Daniel Eisen, trading as National Poultry Products Company.

Order in accordance with opinion.


The jurisdiction of the federal court over a patent infringement suit against a nonresident defendant depends upon the existence of facts prescribed in Section 109, United States Code Annotated, Title 28. The affidavits of the plaintiff show facts, which if established at the time of trial, give this court jurisdiction. Therefore the motion of the defendant is denied.

The plaintiff must remember that in a suit for patent infringement, he has the burden of establishing the jurisdictional facts, and if he fails to establish a regular place of business of the defendant within the district or acts of infringement committed within the district, this court is without jurisdiction.

Haight v. Viking Pump Co. of Delaware, D.C., 29 F. Supp. 575; Scott Williams, Inc. v. Hemphill Co., D.C., 14 F. Supp. 621.

Endrezze v. Dorr Co., Inc., 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 46.

An order should be presented.


Summaries of

Rudolph v. Eisen

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Apr 3, 1941
38 F. Supp. 868 (D.N.J. 1941)
Case details for

Rudolph v. Eisen

Case Details

Full title:RUDOLPH v. EISEN

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Apr 3, 1941

Citations

38 F. Supp. 868 (D.N.J. 1941)