Legal Opinion
Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided August 2, 1950No. 11264PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, District Judge.
In the above entitled patent infringement action the defendant corporation has moved for an order dismissing the complaint because of improper venue, on the ground that the complaint fails to allege acts of infringement in this district as provided under Section 1400(b), Title 28 U.S.C.A., as revised, which reads as follows: “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”
It is the contention of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. PopkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Atkins v. Disintegrating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
- United States v. RyderSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Ackerman v. HookCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Remington Rand, Inc. v. Knapp-Monarch CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- Gulf Research & Development Co. v. LeahyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- United States v. Roland E. ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. Barnes, JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952
- Joseph P. Ruth, Sometimes Also Known as J. P. Ruth v. The Eagle-Picher Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.