*1 á7á plant of the Connellsville business cor- plants parent other poration. controlled view of the decisions findings- fact express law and possible Judge the trial no other we see correctly conclusion than that the case
decided. af- the District Court is
firmed.
CROSLEY CORPORATION v. WESTING-
HOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTUR-
ING CO.
No. 7960. Appeals,
Circuit Court of Third Circuit.
Argued April 9, 1942.
Decided 1942.
Rehearing Sept. 10, Denied 1942.
Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 1942.
See-U.S.-, Darby, Jr., of New City E. York Strickland, (Christy, Parmelee & Pitts- Pa., Floyd Crews,
burgh, H. of New York Redfield, City, Alden D. of Cincinnati, brief), appellant. Lloyd, Chicago, (Vic- Carl S. Beam, City, New York tor S. W. Sciver, Lester, Pa., Melville Van brief), appellee. *2 475 MARIS, complaint JONES, seeking GOOD- relief and RICH, proceed adjudicate the ordinarily should to parties controversy should restrain the and seeking a later suit from in the interim in duplicate that another district court to Westinghouse Electric and Manufactur- adjudication. rule the The reasons for ing is a Co. opinion Crosley fully are in our stated many patents relating is the owner of to Corporation, Corporation Hazeltine v. refrigerators. Corporation, an Crosley The supra, repeated and here. Suf- need not corporation, manufactures and sells Ohio say just fice it to as that think them we 1941, refrigerators. Crosley On where applied valid when to the situation complaint for filed a in the District Court they precedes by day as one suit Pennsylvania in the Western District of year be- are in a intervenes case where that sought which it tween the court below the suits. Since patents Westinghouse as- sixteen declaratory suit be- jurisdiction took the Crosley infringed serted were neither fore the suits were filed 1941, 1, infringed. August valid nor though district court in even the Dis- filed three suits the day intervened, duty its one it became to for the Southern District of trict proceed adjudicate the the to issues between sought same to have the Ohio parties enjoin them from and meanwhile infringed patents sixteen declared valid and proceeding in. the suits. further Ohio by Crosley. days A few later patents suit in two Ohio on other We do not overlook the fact that declaratory suit in were not involved in the the district court the Pennsylvania. Declaratory Judgment Act, the 28 U.S.C.A. parties presented motions in the Both 400, discretionary. Brillhart v. Excess § below. the court West- America, 1942, 1173, Co. of 62 S.Ct. Ins. 1941, inghouse, moved to on November However, legal is a dis- dismiss the suit or the al- arbi- cretion which must be exercised stayed proceeding ternative that the trarily but rather accordance with fixed pending disposition of the principles Fidelity law. United States Crosley, on November Ohio. Koch, Cir., 1939, Guaranty & 102 Co. 3 of, enjoin prosecution moved to the Inc., Goldwyn, v. Unit- F.2d Crosley’s suits. Court denied Ohio The Cir., 1940, Corporation, ed Artists 113 injunction. It also denied motion for an the suit seeks declara- F.2d 703. When Westinghouse's motion dismiss but invalidity noninfringe- tion of and that cause removed from the ordered that the delicate situation ment it is obvious which disposition in- list of the conflicting result fringement in Ohio with leave to jurisdiction of state and federal courts Crosley apply restoration of the Consequently the necessity arise. cannot claratory in the event of suit to list discretionary withholding of de- delay part Westinghouse undue claratory comity in the interest relief prosecution of in the state federal courts is not between and appealed Crosley has from the order suits. denying cases, present. therefore, urges injunction that un- and courts decline by this down court in the rule laid der good faith to obtain de- a suit claratory Corpora- Crosley Corporation v. Hazeltine appears if relief Cir., 1941, tion, 122 F.2d certiorari parties issues are same and 86 L.Ed. denied previously begun or that another Triangle —, reiterated Conduit & and involving subsequently begun another Electric Products National Co. v. Cable questions parties and issues the the same in Cir., 1942, Corporation, 3 125 F.2d controversy parties between the can be denied certiorari sought and them better settled L.Ed.-, duty 1046, 86 effectively expeditiously afford- more the suits declaratory proceeding. in the ed than of the de- pending the decision (cid:127)in Ohio opinion stated court below action. claratory judgment present place the trial of the natural the patent controversy was the we Southern Dis- cases cited In the not, did deter- obtaining jurisdiction Ohio. first trict of sought by par- all relief parties mine issues cause expedi- ap- claratory judgment procedure them more ties could be afforded brought plied effectively patent litigation in the too well es- tiously is now this, declaratory pro- permit in the tablished to of such in that district than attack Furthermore, petitioner’s it. did the ar- ceeding pending before Nor however. *3 declaratory gument upon premise find suit was fails court brought not because declaratory purpose based, namely, of good faith for the which is that a in judgment prayed may against pat- Indeed the suit be a brought for. securing found, necessarily may ent is action the court did take owner wherever he be contrary. implied findings to the wholly incorrect. so retaining For action patent infringement The venue suit of a position control as to be in a to exercise governed exclusively is by Section over the defendant in the event Code, Stonite 28 U.S.C.A. § Judicial unduly delayed prosecution of the latter Co., Lloyd Co. Melvin Products infringement suits in the court Ohio L.Ed. of re- an its discretion in favor exercise of may be Under this such section a grant taining relief. any the defend brought district which It clear what has been said is ant, corporation, a whether individual or an proper exercise of discre- was a “shall acts of have committed part tion on the the court below but that place of regular and have a and established refusing erred declaratory judgment patent A business.” infringement suits by the governed hand is the Southern District of Ohio provisions 51 of the of Section Judicial action and determination Code, 112, under which the 28 U.S.C.A. § action off the ordering latter only may brought in the district be list. is is the defendant an inhabitant. court is re- Supreme The order has true that the for fur- versed and the cause is remanded v. Bethlehem Cor Shipbuilding Neirbo Co. proceedings ther inconsistent with this L. not poration, 308 opinion. designa Ed. A.L.R. by agent tion foreign an process particular Rehearing. Petition for the service of be state' consent to sued in amounts to a BIGGS, MARIS, JONES, This, federal that state. GOODRICH, only enlarge the venue of would against corporate owner appointed only then states process. agent a local for service of petitioned for re has judgment suits The fact that hearing which, for reasons with but one ex brought in only can the home district be ception, origi by upon advanced were or, corporate in the case of a owner argument nal and considered us at that owner, only which foreign those states assigned has time. The one reason novelty with arrangements served has made to be upon assumption is based that a clearly petitioner’s as- negatives the process, may very sertion that venue of such against patent owner wherever he permitted much wider than that of service and that such purposes found Section 48 unrestricted choice of venue made avail an seen, latter suits which, we have alleged infringer may lead to an able of which in the district the De as serious those which abuses also the defendant is an inhabitant claratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § any which the defendant other district in Apparently petitioner eliminated. has considers has has committed acts argument against the this an al regular place of business. declaratory judgment suits and lowance of infringement suits. The petition rehearing favor of is denied.