Case Name: VACUUM CLEANER CO. v. AMERICAN ROTARY VALVE CO.
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-05-02
Citations: 208 F. 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: VACUUM CLEANER CO. v. AMERICAN ROTARY VALVE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 208
Pages: 419–419

Head Matter:
VACUUM CLEANER CO. v. AMERICAN ROTARY VALVE CO.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
May 2, 1913.)
Patents (§ 310 ) — Pleading—Counterclaim:.
Under new equity rule 30 (198 Eed. xxvi, 115 C. C. A. xxvi), wliicli permits the pleading of a counterclaim wliich might be made the subject of an independent suit in equity against the plaintiff, the defendant in an infringement suit may set up in his answer a counterclaim for damages to his business because of the circulation by plaintiff of false statements in respect thereto.
LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 507-540; Dec. Dig. § 310. ]
In Equity. Suit by the Vacuum Cleaner Company against the American Rotary Valve Company, On motion to strike out counterclaim.
Denied.
Ewing & Ewing, of New York City (Thomas Ewing, Jr., and Frank C. Cole, both of New York City, of counsel), for complainant.
Dyer, Dyer & Taylor, of New York City, and Poole & Cromer, of Chicago, 111. (John Robert Taylor, of New York City, and C. Clarence Poole, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.
For other cases see same topic & § numbise in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
The suit is the usual one for infringement of patent. The answer sets up various defenses. It also sets up a counterclaim which charges that complainant in combination with others has circulated false statements about defendant's cleaner and has threatened defendant's customers with suits which it has had no intention of bringing. It is prayed that further interference of this sort with defendant's business be enjoined and that it have damages for any loss already sustained by the circulation of these statements and threats. This may or may not be a good cause of action; it may or may not be susceptible of proof; it can hardly be said to arise out of the transaction which is the subject-matter of the suit. But it does fall within the second category of counterclaims allowable under new equity rule 30 (198 Eed. xxvi, 115 C. C. A. xxvi), since it "might be made the subject of an independent suit in equity against the plaintiff."
The motion to strike out is denied.