Case Name: Stanley PINCUS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James T. CARLISLE, and The Honorable John D. Wessel, Judges of the Fifteenth Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-09-18
Citations: 585 So. 2d 1172
Docket Number: No. 91-1885
Parties: Stanley PINCUS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James T. CARLISLE, and The Honorable John D. Wessel, Judges of the Fifteenth Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondents.
Judges: DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 585
Pages: 1172–1172

Head Matter:
Stanley PINCUS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable James T. CARLISLE, and The Honorable John D. Wessel, Judges of the Fifteenth Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondents.
No. 91-1885.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 18, 1991.
John P. Stetson, West Palm Beach, and Laurence A. Greenberg of Lerner and Greenberg, P.A., Hollywood, for petitioner.
Herbert H. Rolnick of Horowitz & Rol-nick, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Since the fundamental nature of the plaintiffs' claim against petitioner Stanley Pincus in Count I of the complaint involves rights equivalent to those protected by federal patent and copyright law, we conclude that Count I, as against Pincus, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a); Garrido v. Burger King Corp., 558 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc., 405 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Topolos v. Caldewey, 698 F.2d 991 (9th Cir.1983).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition with directions to strike Count I of the complaint as against petitioner Pincus, and we quash that portion of the trial court's March 7, 1991, Order for Temporary Injunction insofar as it prohibits petitioner from using the plaintiffs' patented bars and copyrighted student textbooks, instructor's manuals, sales and placement manuals, beverage management seminar materials and catalogs. This decision has no affect on Counts II and III of the complaint.
DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.