Legal Opinion
Stiegele v. Jacques Kreisler Manufacturing Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 19, 1962PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEVET, District Judge.
Defendant moves to dismiss this action for patent infringement alleging that venue is improperly laid in this district.
Venue in patent infringement actions is determined solely by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 77 S.Ct. 787, 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957). The provisions of venue for a non-resident corporation are that the alleged corporate infringer have both (1) a regular and established place of business and (2) have committed an act of infringement in the district. Since the statute is in the conjunctive, both elements…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Urquhart v. American-La France Foamite CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
- Shelton v. SchwartzCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Brown & Bigelow, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
- Latini v. RM Dubin CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Ruddies v. Auburn Spark Plug Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Watsco, Inc. v. Henry Valve CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Dual Manufacturing and Engineering, Inc. And the Berkline Corporation v. Burris Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Chas. Pfizer & Co. v. Laboratori Pro-Ter Prodotti Therapeutici S. P. A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Dover Corporation v. Fisher Governor CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.