Saturday, May 17, 2014
Gluckin v. International Playtex Co. case brief summary
GLUCKIN v. INTERNATIONAL PLAYTEX CO.
1st suit is patent infringement brought in GA by Playtex v. Woolworth. Federal question of patent is bases of jurisdiction. Gluckin not brought in because not subject to personal jurisdiction there.
Woolworth was liable under a statute that makes it illegal to sue a patent infringed product…. Should have gotten indemnification from manufacturer. This would mean Gluckin is at least colloquially the party in interest - holding the bag.
2nd suit is Gluckin (manufacturer) suing for DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - to have injunctive relief against Playtex declaring NO patent infringement. Declaratory judgment is basically a maneuver whereby an ostensible defendant can become a plaintiff. A reversal with respect to GA litigation. This is a great gimmick in forum selection. Allows defendant to get jump on plaintiff.
Gluckin could have joined suit in GA, however they would prefer to be in their own backyard of NY. Playtex was BIG GA player.
Woolworth could have made a strong motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404…but didn’t make that motion. Afraid they would lose it.
All companies have principle place of business in NY,
NY Court Judge enjoins suit in GA. This seems a bit outrageous. THIS IS APPEALED TO 2nd CIRCUIT.
APPEAL is allowable because a grant or denial of injunctive relief is immediately appealable.
COURT deviates from first filed rule, and points to the fact that manufacturer Gluckin was not in the first case. Clearly advantages to having it in NY. Contacts in NY FAR outweigh those in GA.
Small Business Tax Tips: Maximizing Deductions and Credits https://pixabay.com/photos/money-bills-calculator-to-save-256312/ Managing a sma...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Case Brief: Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 489 U.S. 141 (1989) Facts: In this case, Bonito Boats, Inc. (Bonito) and Thunder...