TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Greiner Electronic, Inc. v. Establissements Henry-Le Paute, S.A.

Am. Greiner Elec., Inc. v. Establissements Henry-Le Paute, S.A., 174 F. Supp. 918 (D.D.C. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, District of Columbia · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 11, 1959
Docket
No. 780-59
Judges
Holtzoff
Citations
174 F. Supp. 918121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 3681959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3272

Opinion of the Court — Holtzoff

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The Court is of the opinion that, although it has jurisdiction over the person and over the cause of action, this is an appropriate situation in which this Court should decline to take jurisdiction in the exercise of discretion.

The action is brought for a declaratory judgment to declare a patent invalid. A few days after this action was instituted, the defendant in this action filed a suit in the District of Connecticut against the plaintiff in this action for infringement of the patent. If the defendant in this action were to file a counterclaim for infringement, the issues in the two actions would be identical.

It lies in the discretion of the Court whether to entertain an action for a declaratory judgment. To maintain such a suit is not a matter of right. The philosophy on which the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201 , 2202, is based and the very purpose of permitting suits to be brought for a declaratory judgment is to allow and provide a method for adjudicating the rights of parties prior to the time that they are in shape for adjudication by a suit for damages or for some other affirmative relief. There is no necessity for a declaratory judgment in the situation here presented because the same issues are involved in the action pending in the District of Connecticut. For that reason, in the exercise of discretion, the Court will decline to take jurisdiction of this action and will grant the motion to dismiss.

How later courts describe this case

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

1966: 11971: 11987: 11993: 11994: 11995: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tempco Electric Heater Corporation v. Omega Engineering, Inc.819 F.2d 746 (7th Cir. 1987)
  2. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.439 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1971)
  3. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc.815 F. Supp. 994 (E.D. Tex. 1993)
  4. Brower v. Flint Ink Corp.865 F. Supp. 564 (N.D. Iowa 1994)
  5. Wilkin v. R. H. Wilkin Trust261 F. Supp. 977 (W.D. Okla. 1966)
  6. Chicago Linen Exchange v. Adler888 F. Supp. 92 (C.D. Ill. 1995)

Most recent

  1. Chicago Linen Exchange v. Adler888 F. Supp. 92 (C.D. Ill. 1995)
  2. Brower v. Flint Ink Corp.865 F. Supp. 564 (N.D. Iowa 1994)
  3. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc.815 F. Supp. 994 (E.D. Tex. 1993)
  4. Tempco Electric Heater Corporation v. Omega Engineering, Inc.819 F.2d 746 (7th Cir. 1987)
  5. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.439 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1971)
  6. Wilkin v. R. H. Wilkin Trust261 F. Supp. 977 (W.D. Okla. 1966)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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