Case Name: KIDDE, INC., by its LEFEBURE DIVISION, Appellant, v. E.F. BAVIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., and Edward F. Bavis, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1984-06-06
Citations: 735 F.2d 1085
Docket Number: No. 83-2568
Parties: KIDDE, INC., by its LEFEBURE DIVISION, Appellant, v. E.F. BAVIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., and Edward F. Bavis, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 735
Pages: 1085–1086

Head Matter:
KIDDE, INC., by its LEFEBURE DIVISION, Appellant, v. E.F. BAVIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., and Edward F. Bavis, Appellees.
No. 83-2568.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 1984.
Decided June 6, 1984.
Simmons, Perrine, Albright & Ellwood, Haven E. Simmons, David A. Hacker, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellant.
Albert E. Strasser, David E. Schmit, Frost & Jacobs, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appel-lees.
Before ROSS, ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kidde, Inc., and E.F. Bavis & Associates, Inc., both manufacture automatic equipment used by banks at drive-in windows. Bavis, which holds a patent on its equipment, placed in a national banking journal an advertisement that, in effect, threatened suit for contributory infringement against any bank buying a machine that might infringe on Bavis's patent. Kidde then brought this suit for declaratory and in-junctive relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, alleging that the advertisement was intended by Bavis to be understood as a reference to Kidde's machine, that Bavis's patent is invalid or not infringed, and that Bavis's actions amounted to unfair competition and intentional interference with busi ness relationships. Subject-matter jurisdiction was based in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (patent cases). The District Court dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction over Bavis, an Ohio citizen.
We have no jurisdiction over this appeal. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (1982) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—
(1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States . if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title____
Accordingly, we transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (1982).