Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Independent Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

Indep. Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chi. Pneumatic Tool Co., 167 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1948)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-05-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This action was brought for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of two patents owned by the defendant. The District Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of venue and granted plaintiff’s motion to restrain the prosecution of a subsequent infringement suit on the same patents in Ohio. An appeal has been taken to this court from each of those rulings. The District Court, in connection with its decision, wrote an opinion in which the facts and issues are correctly stated, and in which it has carefully analyzed the law upon which its decision was predicated.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Independent Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC v. CHICAGO PNEUMATIC,167 F.2d 1002(7th Cir. 1948)
INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO
PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 9512.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 5, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Philip L. Sullivan, Judge.
Clarence J. Loftus, of Chicago, Ill., and Floyd H. Crews and Raymond G. Mullee, both of New York City, for defendant-appellant.

George N. Hibben and Harry W. Lindsey, Jr., both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MAJOR and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of two patents owned by the defendant. The District Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of venue and granted plaintiff's motion to restrain the prosecution of a subsequent infringement suit on the same patents in Ohio. An appeal has been taken to this court from each of those rulings. The District Court, in connection with its decision, wrote an opinion in which the facts and issues are correctly stated, and in which it has carefully analyzed the law upon which its decision was predicated. This opinion is published in74 F. Supp. 502. After a careful study of the case, we reach the conclusion that the District Court was correct both in its reasoning and result. Such being the case, this court could serve no good purpose in writing an opinion. We therefore adopt the opinion of the District Court as that of this court.

The order appealed from is affirmed.Page 1003Page 1