Legal Document

342 U.S. 180 72 Supreme Court Reporter 219 96 L.Ed. 200 KEROTEST MFG. CO.v.C-O-TWO FIRE EQUIPMENT CO. Number 180. Argued Nov. 30, 1951. Decided Jan. 2, 1952. Mr. Walter Judge Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. R. Morton Adams, New York City, respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The C-O-Two Fire Equipment Company, respondent here, owns two patents, one issued on November 23, 1948, and other reissued August 1949, squeezegrip values discharge heads portable fire extinguishers. C-O-Two, incorporated in Delaware, has offices Newark, Jersey. On January 17, 1950, it commenced District Northern Illinois an action against Acme Company 'making causing to be made selling using' devices which were charged with infringing C-O-Two's patents. 2 March 9, petitioner Kerotest began Delaware this proceeding a declaration that patents sued are invalid manufactures supplies Acme, defendant, do not infringe Kerotest, Pennsylvania corporation, its but was subject service process Illinois. 22, filed amendment complaint joining as defendant action. 3 In moved stay declaratory judgment sought enjoin from prosecuting suit 'either alone, or generally, (the might) deem just proper.' stayed refused Illinois, reexamination questions after 90 days. 85 U.S.P.Q. 185. appeal by Appeals Third Circuit affirmed, holding had abused discretion staying days permit get 'more information concerning controverted status suit.' 182 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 773, 775. 4 During 90-day period allowed joinder denying motion pending disposition suit, general appearance. After both parties renewed their motions time asking enjoined only Kerotest. Court, different judge sitting, denied action, largely acting assumption rulings own Courts required such result except 'exceptional cases,' since between before suit. 92 F.Supp. 943. appeal, reversed, saying part: '* * whole war all Chicago theatre there can fought finish litigations now cast. hand if battle is waged arena strong probability nonetheless would have proceeded cannot party litigation. when adjudicated will bind cases. Why, under circumstances, should where suffice? We find no adequate reason. assume, course, prompt theatre.' 189 31, 34; 89 411, 414. 5 A petition rehearing granted Appeals, seven circuit judges sitting en banc, expanded dissented, adhered views court three judges. 31. Inasmuch question importance conduct multiple litigation federal judicial system involved, we certiorari. 810, 48. 6 Declaratory Judgments Act,1 facilitating does initiation many-sided transactions, created complicated problems coordinate courts.2 Wise administration, giving regard conservation resources comprehensive litigation, counsel rigid mechanical solution problems. factors relevant wise administration here equitable nature. Necessarily, ample degree discretion, appropriate disciplined experienced judges, must left lower courts. conclusion asked upset derives extended careful study circumstances Such estimate led twice conclude interests best served prosecution single Even more doubts than about analysis feel justified displacing ours.3 7 It strongly pressed upon us below may encourage owners weak avoid real tests patents' validity successive suits customers forums inconvenient manufacturers, selected because greater hospitality apprehension implies lack discipline disinterestedness part courts, hardly worthy basis fashioning rules procedure. reflects attitude warned Holmes, speaking likewise procedure: 'Universal distrust creates universal incompetence.' Graham versus United States, 231 474, 480, 34 148, 151, 58 319. If rare instance district abuses discretionary authority want precludes effective, independent judiciary, always opportunity corrective review ultimately 8 manufacturer who patent stretch Act give him paramount right choose forum trying out infringement validity. He given equal start race courthouse, headstart. he forehanded, subsequent patentee within trial court's determination suit,4 his favor bars customers.5 anticipated, broad enough protect harassment customers. patentee's customer brought joined permitted simultaneously prosecute elsewhere. And unwilling non conveniens, available showing relief provided § 1404(a) Judicial Code. 62 Statutes-at-Large 869, 937, 28 States Code KF62 1404(a), Annotated KF65 U5 1404(a).6 9 affirmed. 10 Affirmed. 11 CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK dissent. 48 955, §§ 2201—2202, 2201 2202. See Developments Law—Declaratory Judgments, 1941 Harv.L.Rev. 787, 814—815, 866 (1949). Other cases present at comparable situations show any rule felt constrained. view our decision profitable discuss these detail. suffice indicate concurrent controversies adjustment sought. Triangle Conduit & Cable company National Electric Products Corp., Cir., 125 1008 (suit 1—declaratory patentee; 2—patentee sues infringement: manufacturer); Cresta Blanca Wine Eastern 143 1012 trademark owner; 2—trademark owner distributor infringement; thereafter, seeks intervene plaintiff 1: intervention Speed Tinnerman Products, Inc., 83 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 171 727 1—A Commissioner Patents Columbia registration trademark; 2—suit N.Y. B alone non-infringement B's mark; joins files counterclaim mark: advanced trial); Hammett Warner Bros. Pictures, 176 145 1—alleged copyright broadcaster writer alleged dismissed); Remington Prod. Corporation American Aerovap, 1951, 192 872 1—manufacturer bring A, B, C, Defendant enjoined). By endorsing what effect exercise consideration specific neither approve nor throw doubt decisions Appeals. See, e.g., Crosley Westinghouse Mfg. Co., 130 474; Carbide Carbon Chemicals Industrial Chemicals, 140 47; Independent Pneumatic Tool 167 1002. Kessler Eldred, 206 285, 27 611, 51 1065. suggested Rule 15(c) Rules Civil Procedure, U.S.C.A., makes take date, were, original course preceded equities situation depend argument.

Classification Label: 8