Case Name: MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1916-02-11
Citations: 231 F. 701
Docket Number: No. 248
Parties: MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 231
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 11, 1916.)
No. 248.
Abatement and Revival <S=>12—Suit fob Infringement—Dismissal of Appeal—Pendency of Another Suit.
The pendency of another suit between the parties in another jurisdiction, which may not determine their rights in the instant suit, is not ground for dismissal or stay of an appeal in an infringement suit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Abatement and Revival, Cent. Dig. §§ 87-91, 94, 95, 98; Dec. Dig. @=»12.]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Suit in equity by the Motion Picture Patents Company against the Universal Film Manufacturing Company and others. From the decree, complainant appeals. On motion to dismiss or stay appeal.
Denied.
Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Edward Wetmore and O. W. Jeffery, both of New York City, for appellees.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We think the motion should be denied. A stay now would simply postpone the hearing of this appeal. It would not, or at least it may not, determine the complainant's rights in this case, which is apparently a simple infringement suit based upon a patent owned by the complainant.
The defendants have set up the alleged license agreement, and if they claim under it they cannot attack it. The more orderly and safer way is to let the case proceed on its merits.