Cincinnati Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Vigorith
CINCINNATI SHOE MFG. CO. v. VIGORITH Et Al.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;
And it appearing that in the matter appealed from the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction of the controversy ;
And it appearing that while the complaint prays for declaratory judgment and injunction, the primary and controlling purpose of the action is to secure a judgment directing the appellee to transfer to the appellant the entire legal title in Patent No. 255,975, Cf. Dill Mfg. Co. v. Goff, 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 676 , cer-tiorari denied 317 U.S. 672 , 63 S.Ct. 77 , 87 L.Ed. 540 ;
And it appearing that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject matter of the controversy, and that courts of a state may try questions of title to patents, New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U.S. 473 , 32 S.Ct. 238 , 56 L.Ed. 513 ;
And it appearing that the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201 , 2202, does not confer jurisdiction merely by reason of the existence of a controversy, and jurisdiction must be found in some other statute, Magic Foam Sales Corp v. Mystic Foam Corp., 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 88, 91 ;
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and it is hereby affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.