Legal Opinion
Tol-O-Matic, Inc. v. Proma Produkt-Und Marketing Gesellschaft, M.B.H.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided December 15, 1987No. Civ. 4-87-760PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DOTY, District Judge.
This is an action for declaratory judgment declaring that plaintiff has not infringed Proma Produkt-Und Marketing Gesellschaft m.b.H.’s (“Proma”) patent rights. Before the Court is defendant Proma’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction. Assuming the Court concludes it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Proma, defendant Norgren Co. has moved for dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b), for nonjoinder of an indispensable party.
FACTS
Proma, a corporation engaged in the business of owning and licensing patents,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Scullin Steel Company v. National Railway Utilization Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
- B & J Manufacturing Company v. Solar Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- The Akro Corporation v. Ken LukerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Nippon Carbide Industries Co., Inc., a Japanese CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Zumbro, Inc. v. California Natural ProductsDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
- Stairmaster Sports/Medical Products, Inc. v. Pacific Fitness Corp.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.