Court Opinion

ID: 9456443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:53:15.627818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:58.871308
License: Public Domain

PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Contending that our initial opinion in Ortman v. Stanray, No. 18379 (filed January 14, 1971), prejudged certain issues which were not prsented to us on appeal but which might become relevant on remand, appellee Stanray Corporation petitions for rehearing.
In footnote 3 of our initial opinion, 437 F.2d at 234, we stated that “We held [in Ortman v. Stanray Corp., 371 F.2d 154 (7th Cir. 1967)] that the district court had jurisdiction of the causes of action based on infringement of the foreign patents * * Stanray argues that our 1967 opinion, though it upheld the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the plaintiff’s foreign patent causes of action for lack of jurisdiction, held only that the district court should determine whether “the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction should be applied * * * after it has interpreted the various rights of the parties under the contract.” 371 F.2d at 158. We recognize that saying that the district court was not required to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be somewhat different from saying that the eoux-t had jurisdiction; but our summary description of the holding on the earlier appeal was intended only to provide some of the procedural background for the present appeal. We did not intend by the footnote to prejudge the propriety of the district court’s application of the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, nor to adopt the diversity theory suggested in the concurring opinion, 371 F.2d at 159. It is 1 still open to Stanray to challenge the dis- j trict court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the foreign patent causes of action.
Stanray also takes issue with our statement that “Defendant made no further payments under the contract after July 5, 1964, though it continued to use the device.” 437 F.2d at 233 (emphasis added.) Stanray argues that one of the issues both in the contract and infringement cause is whether it continues to make or use milling head inserts such as those covered by the patent in suit. Whether this is an issue or not is not before us on this appeal. If it is an issue, .we did not by our language intend to prejudge it.
The foregoing clarification of our initial opinion renders reconsideration unnecessary. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.