CINCINNATI SHOE MFG. CO.
v.
VIGORITH ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that state courts can try questions of title to patents, and the Declaratory Judgments Act does not confer jurisdiction by itself.
The District Court dismissed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction to transfer patent title. The primary purpose of the action was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;
And it appearing that in the matter appealed from the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction of the controversy ;
And it appearing that while the complaint prays for declaratory judgment and injunction, the primary and controlling purpose of the action is to secure a judgment directing the appellee to transfer to the appellant the entire legal title in Patent No. 255,975, Cf. Dill Mfg. Co. v. Goff, 6 Cir., 125 F. 2d 676, cer-tiorari denied 317 U.S. 672, 63 S.Ct. 77, 87 L.Ed. 540;
And it appearing that 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, and that courts of a state may try questions of title to patents, New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U.S. 473, 32 S.Ct. 238, 56 L.Ed. 513;
And it appearing that the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, does not confer jurisdiction merely by reason of the existence of a controversy, and jurisdiction must be found in some other statute, Magic Foam Sales Corp v. Mystic Foam Corp., 6 Cir., 167 F. 2d 88, 91;
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and it is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iliff v. Am. Fire Apparatus Co., Inc., 277 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1960)
Authorities Cited
- New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1912)
- Mahogany Ass'n, Inc. v. Black & Yates, Inc., 317 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1942)
- Borup v. The Ulysses, 317 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1942)
- Dill MFG. Co. v. Goff, 125 F.2d 676 (6th Cir. 1942)
- Magic Foam Sales Corp. v. Mystic Foam Corp., 167 F.2d 88 (6th Cir. 1948)