Opinion ID: 413317
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Apprehension.

Text: 56 We begin our discussion with one proposition that apparently has united all courts that have considered the question: in order to demonstrate the requisite reasonable apprehension of a patent-infringement or contempt proceeding brought by Interdynamics, Trans Tech need not prove that Interdynamics expressly has threatened to take legal action against Trans Tech. 11 Instead, Trans Tech can make out a justiciable controversy merely by showing  'any indirect or implicit or covert charge [of contempt] or threat [of suit or] ... any conduct or course of action from which any charge or threat could be inferred.'  Robin Products Co. v. Tomecek, supra note 11, 465 F.2d at 1195 (quoting Goodrich-Gulf Chemicals, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 376 F.2d 1015, 1019 (6th Cir.1967)). Moreover, we must stress that, in applying these rules to fact situations before them to determine whether or not there is an 'actual controversy' courts should make a pragmatic judgment, aware of the business realities that are involved. Sherwood Medical Industries, Inc. v. Deknatel, Inc., supra note 11, 512 F.2d at 728. 57 The long history of this litigation already has been set forth in almost tedious detail. We need only recapitulate the highlights. When Trans Tech attempted in 1978 to market the Wolf product, Interdynamics sued for patent infringement. Moreover, Interdynamics had already sued another alleged infringer and had obtained a consent decree admitting infringement and acknowledging the validity of the Barnard patent. 12 Interdynamics, Inc. v. Budge Mfg. Co., Inc., No. 75-1826 (D.N.J. June 25, 1976) (order entering consent decree). When Trans Tech then produced the first Trans Tech product, Interdynamics again took legal action, this time by way of an order to show cause why Trans Tech should not be held in contempt for violating the consent decree that had been signed as part of the 1978 proceeding. 58 Trans Tech now seeks for the third time to manufacture and market a rear-window defroster, a product which Trans Tech feared--correctly, according to the district court--might be found to be merely colorably different from the previous two products. 13 Based on Interdynamics' prior course of conduct toward both Trans Tech and Budge Mfg. Co., we cannot say either that Trans Tech unreasonably feared Interdynamics' wrath or that the district court committed reversible error in granting what we consider to be a declaratory judgment. 14 Nor have we discovered any case denying the propriety of such relief against a backdrop of similarly ominous facts. 15 We thus find that the reasonable apprehension requirement of our two-part test has been satisfied. 59