TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Pharma-Craft Corporation

Ex Parte PHARMA-CRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner

Ex Parte Pharma-Craft Corp., 236 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 16, 1956
Docket
No. 16227
Judges
Hutcheson, Rives, Jones
Citations
236 F.2d 911111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 2491956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5356

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Pharma-Craft Corporation is the as-signee of a patent of an anti-perspirant deodorant stick. It brought suit in the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against F. W. Woolworth Co. and Associated Products, Inc. alleging infringement by Woolworth in the sale in Macon, Georgia, and elsewhere, of products infringing the patent, and by Associated in selling infringing products to Woolworth. Injunction, damages and costs are sought. Woolworth, doing business in the district where sued, was served with process. Associated is not within the district and has not been served. Woolworth filed a motion to transfer the cause under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404 (a) to the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. Affidavits in support of and in opposition to the motion were filed. In an opinion by the *912 District Judge the contentions were reviewed and analyzed; Pharma-Craft Corp. v. F. W. ’Woolworth Co., 144 F. Supp. 298 . The District Court: determined that it is for the convenience of parties and in the interest of justice that the cause be transferred to, the court in Illinois. An order of transfer was entered. The plaintiff, Pharma-Craft Corporation, has filed, in this Court and we now consider its motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the District Court to vacate its order of transfer.

As in Ex parte Chas. Pfizer, & Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 1955, 225 F.2d 720 , the District Court considered all pertinent facts, properly construed the statute and did not abuse its discretion. The rule- announced in that case governs here.

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is Denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1957: 11958: 21959: 11970: 11975: 11978: 11981: 31984: 12000: 119572026peak 1981 · 3

Most recent

  1. Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000)
  2. In re McClelland Engineers, Inc.742 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1984)
  3. In re Castanho650 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1981)
  4. Castanho v. Jackson Marine, Inc.650 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1981)
  5. In re McDonnell-Douglas Corp.647 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1981)
  6. Blankenship v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.460 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Miss. 1978)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Chas. Pfizer & Co., 225 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1955) 34
Pharma-Craft Corp. v. F. W. Woodworth Co., 144 F. Supp. 298 (M.D. Ga. 1956) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list