Document: 365 U.S. 260 81 S.Ct. 557 5 L.Ed.2d 546 Carl SCHNELL et al., Petitioners,v.PETER ECKRICH & SONS, INC., al. No. 219. Argued Jan. 11, 1961. Decided Feb. 20, Mr. Charles J. Merriam, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. M. Hudson Rathburn, respondents. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The sole issue in this patent infringement suit, filed Northern District Indiana, is whether as a matter law respondent Allbright-Nell Co., an Illinois manufacturer, by openly assuming and controlling action defense its customer, Peter Eckrich Sons, Inc., subjected itself to jurisdiction that court waived statutory venue requirements 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), U.S.C.A. 1400(b).1 motion dismiss it because Indiana was improper sustained without opinion. Court Appeals affirmed, 279 F.2d 594.2 We granted certiorari, 364 813, 60, 45. affirm judgment. 2 manufactured alleged infringing device, machine cutting sausage meat, known 'ANCO Emulsitator.' It sold some devices Eckrich, whose principal place business at Fort Wayne, Indiana. In contract sale, agreed defend any suits which might be against involving device bear all expense thereof, including recovery. While using machines, petitioners sued infringement.3 Pursuant contract, employed attorneys who defended suit name Eckrich. Thereafter, before judgment entered, amended their complaint, naming party defendant. Service made upon serving president Illinois. Motions quash (on ground such service outside court) under 1400(b) improper) were promptly filed. admit conferred no on also concede had and, therefore, could not lie However, they urge presence through attorneys, defending gave over former.4 effect, argue, fact protecting own interests, acting only 'puppeteer' seeking benefits litigation but attempting avoid responsibilities, save ultimate application res judicata. It, should deemed have entered general appearance objection venue. face however, we think not. 3 'may lost failure assert seasonably, formal submission cause, or conduct, * courts affix conduct (such) consequences consistent with policy behind' applicable statute. Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 165, 168, 60 153, 155, 84 L.Ed. 167. As pointed out cases, Congress adopted predecessor special statute actions eliminate 'abuses engendered' previous provisions allowing brought district defendant served. Stonite Products Melvin Lloyd 315 561, 62 780, 86 1026. Act designed 'to define exact these matters,' page 565, note 5, 782, 'dovetail (venue) provisions.' Id., 566, 782. late 1957 held 'the exclusive provision infringements actions.' Fourco Glass Transmirra 1957, 353 222, 229, 77 787, 792, 786. language clear specific. practice complained here unusual time statute's passage,5 us enlarge mandate would intrusion into legislative field. 4 fact, do now what specifically refused 45 years ago Merriam Saalfield, 1916, 241 22, 36 477, 868. There entire named (Saalfield) financed controlled one Ogilvie, whom improper; sought supplemental bill make Ogilvie final rendered, after unfair competition ahd been decided; bound Nevertheless, his seasonable substituted Saalfield sustained. believe holding completely supports our conclusion here. If found facts there stronger, proceedings handled entirely progressed appointment master determine amount damages. All remained when join accounting. Yet unanimous dismissal, saying: '(I)f decree (of injunction accounting) between appellant (Merriam Co.) cannot judicata Ogilvie; thus fundamental proceeding latter process disappears. This sufficiently shows weakness appellant's position, which, analysis, this: theory estopped if made, bring him decree, he already estopped. However convenient complainant inconsistent elementary principles.' pages 28—29, 480. 6 Petitioners stress continued party. are persuaded has bearing decided. will waiver alone nothing plaintiff can change legal attach conduct. Cf. Olberding Central R. 346 338, 74 83, 98 39. Certainly point control total activities considered determining waived; alter conclusions drawn from Therefore, Allbright-Nell's took being immaterial question 1400(b). 7 insist result exalts form substance. 'The requirement specific unambiguous; those vague principles interest overriding policy, given 'liberal' construction.' supra, 340, 71 85. 8 Affirmed. 1400(b): 'Any civil may judicial where resides, committed acts regular established business.' appeal allowed 1292(b), 1292(b) certificate order dismissing involved immediate materially advance termination litigation. Subsequently, second different same court, both respondents defendants. similar orders it, cases consolidated appeal. conceded Allbright-Nell, interest, precluded judicata, relitigating issues. Souffront La Compagnie Des Sucreries De Porto Rico, 217 475, 30 608, 54 846; Lovejoy Murray, Wall. 1, 18 129. Some prior occasion pass effect relation 1866, 19, 129, issues adjudicated first.

Category: 8