Law Commons^™

Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while serving on a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporations, brought a civil action in federal district court alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The venue provision of the Jones Act requires that actions under it be brought in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania although defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal offices in Louisiana. Defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of …

Patents-Adjudication Of Validity In Infringement Cases Where Alternative Grounds For Dismissal Exist, Walter A. Urick

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner's complaint alleging validity and infringement of his patent was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that petitioner had granted to respondent an implied license or "shop right." On appeal, petitioner claimed, among other things, error in the refusal of the trial court to rule on the questions of validity and infringement of the patent. Respondent moved to strike these claims from petitioner's statement of points on appeal. Held, motion denied. Failure of the trial court to pass on the questions of validity and infringement does not preclude the petitioner from arguing these issues on appeal. Kierulff …

Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner brought a patent infringement action in the northern district of Texas, wherein the alleged infringement occurred and the named defendants resided and had a regular place of business. On motion by the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), authorizing the transfer of certain actions to a district in which the action "might have been brought," the court ordered transfer to the northern district of Illinois where litigation on the same patent was already in progress between the plaintiff and other alleged infringers. Petitioner's motion for mandamus to require the Texas district court to set aside this transfer order was …

Implied Warranties Of Non-Infringement, Louis Robertson

Michigan Law Review

When a manufacturer or dealer sells a product, is there an implied warranty that the product does not infringe adversely-owned patents? In other words, does the purchaser who is successfully sued for infringement have the right, without an indemnity clause, to be indemnified by the seller?

Many lawyers, especially patent lawyers, who are accustomed to advising the insertion of express patent warranties in sales contracts to take care of the matter, have answered this question instantly and positively in the negative, and it is quite possible that according to fundamental principles of implied warranties they are right, and yet all …

Federal Practice - Appeal And Error - Dismissal Of Counterclaim Because Of Improper Venue Appealable As Interlocutory Order Denying Injunction

Michigan Law Review

To plaintiffs' suit for patent infringement defendants counterclaimed upon an unrelated patent asking for an injunction and an accounting. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue was sustained by the district court. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs moved to dismiss on the ground that dismissal of a counterclaim was not a refusal of an injunction and therefore not appealable under Sec. 129, Judicial Code. The circuit court of appeals allowed the appeal and this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. General Electric Co. et al. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co. et al., 287 U.S. 430, 53 …

Restrictions On The Use Of Patented Articles, Edward S. Rogers

Michigan Law Review

The case of Henry v. Dick recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, has occasioned considerable unfavorable comment in the public press. It seems to be the opinion of many that the decision lays down a new principle of law, particularly adaptable to the working of a monopoly, and that the public is, under the supposed new principle, exposed to a practically unlimited exploitation by any patentee. It is believed that neither of these contentions is correct.