Legal Opinion

Patent Tube Corp. v. Bristol-Myers Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 6, 1938PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The defendant, appearing specially, moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This is a patent infringement suit. Before this court can assume jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show: (1) That the defendant has a regular and established place of business in this district, and (2) that the defendant has committed acts of infringement within the district as provided by statute. The first element is undisputed so that the court must decide whether the defendant has committed acts of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co. v. Curtis & Carhart, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  2. Daimler Mfg. Co. v. ConklinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
  3. Scott & Williams, Inc. v. Hemphill Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  4. Hoegger v. F. H. Lawson & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1929

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Applied Biosystems, Inc. v. Cruachem, Ltd.District Court, D. Delaware · 1991
  2. Union Asbestos & Rubber Company, by Change of Name Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Evans Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1964
  3. Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1991
  4. Ferguson v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
  5. Kaz Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API