T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu
339 F.2d 823
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff appealed from the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing its action for equitable and declaratory relief for alleged copyright infringement.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff sued defendants for copyright infringement.
-Plaintiff alleged its own New York incorporation and did not allege the citizenship of defendants. -Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and for lack of federal jurisdiction, which was granted.
HOLDING:
- The court held that the district court was correct when it treated jurisdictional issue as turning solely on whether the complaint alleged any act or threat of copyright infringement.
-The plaintiff did not do so in its complaint and, therefore, plaintiff did not have a proper action.
RULES:
The Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject-matter of the controversy. For courts of a state may try questions of title, and may construe and enforce contracts relating to patents.
OUTCOME:
The court affirmed the ruling of the district court, citing the fact that the plaintiff did not allege an act or threat of copyright infringement.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
339 F.2d 823
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff appealed from the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing its action for equitable and declaratory relief for alleged copyright infringement.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff sued defendants for copyright infringement.
-Plaintiff alleged its own New York incorporation and did not allege the citizenship of defendants. -Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and for lack of federal jurisdiction, which was granted.
HOLDING:
- The court held that the district court was correct when it treated jurisdictional issue as turning solely on whether the complaint alleged any act or threat of copyright infringement.
-The plaintiff did not do so in its complaint and, therefore, plaintiff did not have a proper action.
RULES:
The Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject-matter of the controversy. For courts of a state may try questions of title, and may construe and enforce contracts relating to patents.
OUTCOME:
The court affirmed the ruling of the district court, citing the fact that the plaintiff did not allege an act or threat of copyright infringement.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment