Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc. Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc, 199 F.2d 732, 2d Cir. (1952)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a 1952 appellate court decision regarding a patent dispute over a permanent waving solution. The court affirmed the lower court's injunction preventing substantially identical litigation from proceeding in federal court in Texas. The court found that the validity of the single patent at issue should be determined in one adjudication, and that New York was the appropriate venue given its connections to the parties and witnesses. The court also denied the defendant's objections to the referral of issues to a special master, finding it was not shown to justify extraordinary remedies and may expedite resolution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc. Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc, 199 F.2d 732, 2d Cir. (1952)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    39 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a 1952 appellate court decision regarding a patent dispute over a permanent waving solution. The court affirmed the lower court's injunction preventing substantially identical litigation from proceeding in federal court in Texas. The court found that the validity of the single patent at issue should be determined in one adjudication, and that New York was the appropriate venue given its connections to the parties and witnesses. The court also denied the defendant's objections to the referral of issues to a special master, finding it was not shown to justify extraordinary remedies and may expedite resolution.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1952-11-05 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 199 F.2d 732 Docket: 22457

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a 1952 appellate court decision regarding a patent dispute over a permanent waving solution. The court affirmed the lower court's injunction preventing substantially identical litigation from proceeding in federal court in Texas. The court found that the validity of the single patent at issue should be determined in one adjudication, and that New York was the appropriate venue given its connections to the parties and witnesses. The court also denied the defendant's objections to the referral of issues to a special master, finding it was not shown to justify extraordinary remedies and may expedite resolution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    39 views3 pages

    Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc. Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc, 199 F.2d 732, 2d Cir. (1952)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a 1952 appellate court decision regarding a patent dispute over a permanent waving solution. The court affirmed the lower court's injunction preventing substantially identical litigation from proceeding in federal court in Texas. The court found that the validity of the single patent at issue should be determined in one adjudication, and that New York was the appropriate venue given its connections to the parties and witnesses. The court also denied the defendant's objections to the referral of issues to a special master, finding it was not shown to justify extraordinary remedies and may expedite resolution.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    199 F.

    2d 732

    HELENE CURTIS INDUSTRIES, Inc. et al.


    v.
    SALES AFFILIATES, Inc.
    GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. et al.
    v.
    SALES AFFILIATES, Inc.
    No. 92.
    No. 93.
    Docket 22456.
    Docket 22457.

    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.


    Argued October 15, 1952.
    Decided November 5, 1952.

    Charles H. Tuttle, New York City (Morgan, Finnegan & Durham, George
    B. Finnegan, Jr., William L. Hanaway, and Stuart H. Johnson, Jr., all of
    New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
    Henry R. Ashton, New York City (Fish, Richardson & Neave, New York
    City; Kenyon & Kenyon, Theodore S. Kenyon, Maurice S. Cayne, Malvin
    R. Mandelbaum, and John A. Reilly, all of New York City; Edgar H.
    Kent, Boston, Mass., and Harry R. Pugh, Jr., and Rynn Berry, both of
    New York City; and Hawkins, Delafield & Wood and Clarence Fried, all
    of New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
    Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    In the opinion below, D.C.S.D.N. Y., 105 F.Supp. 886, the district judge
    supports his grants of injunction restraining prosecution of substantially
    identical litigation in the federal court in Texas with cogent reasons why this

    many faceted and bitter patent dispute should be concentrated in New York.
    These we are constrained to accept on these appeals. Generally speaking, a
    simple case pending in diverse courts may be allowed to go forward
    simultaneously in each tribunal until one reaches final judgment, and prior
    judicial control or direction is unnecessary if not undesirable. But that is not the
    case when a major industry is left in turmoil for some years while litigation as
    to it sprouts in various parts of the country. Here, the basic question at issue is
    as to the validity and meaning of a single patent, the McDonough Patent, No.
    2,577,710, for Permanent Waving Solutions involving "cold permanent waves,"
    which, as the district judge puts it, "have revolutionized the mode by which the
    women of America, and, it is added, of most of the civilized world improve
    upon nature's bounty." 105 F.Supp. at page 889. It appears that after strong
    threats of litigation had demoralized the business and the two present suits for
    declaratory judgments of invalidity had been instituted, the defendant filed a
    total of six infringement actions against ten concerns in different parts of the
    country. Of these, it has now withdrawn four in Washington, D. C., and desires
    to press the two pending in Texas. Under the principles of Kerotest Mfg. Co. v.
    C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 72 S.Ct. 219, and Remington
    Products Corp. v. American Aerovap, Inc., 2 Cir., 192 F.2d 872, the matter
    should be heard and disposed of once and for all in one adjudication. And New
    York is the normal and convenient place where that should be had. It is not
    only the venue of the earliest suits and the situs of the defendant's incorporation
    and principal office; it is also the locality of most of the technical and important
    witnesses, including the purported inventor, and thus the place where the
    problems involving novelty and prior art can be most easily and directly
    investigated. All the alleged infringers sued in Texas have now been permitted
    to intervene here; and the federal court in Texas, after the grant of injunctions in
    the court below, has transferred the cases to this court, under the power given it
    by 28 U.S.C.A. 1404(a). Finality of adjudication as to the patent, thus
    allowing the business to compose itself, can be secured in New York and
    cannot be secured in Texas.
    2

    But a single possible obstacle remains, one clearly fostered and sustained by
    defendant. It took out the patent in the name of its affiliate, The Procter &
    Gamble Company, which it has made a party to its Texas actions, but which
    cannot be reached by process here. Yet by the terms of the "assignment,"
    defendant retains the right at its own expense to conduct all Patent Office
    proceedings, to grant licenses, to bring and defend suits at its own expense, and
    to take the proceeds. We agree with the district judge that the record owner is
    not "indispensable," but that defendant controls and represents it for all
    practical purposes here. A. L. Smith Iron Co. v. Dickson, 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 3.

    Defendant also objects to the references of all issues to former District Judge
    Simon H. Rifkind as Special Master for hearing and report. All other parties
    before us warmly support the reference. It is true, as indeed the Federal Rules
    of Civil Procedure, Rule 53(b), 28 U.S.C.A., state, that reference to a master
    should be the exception; delay, expense, and the postponement of judicial
    consideration all so suggest. But the very existence of a rule providing for an
    exceptional course means that occasionally at least that course may be
    followed. Further hearings already under way before so experienced a
    trier suggest a good probability that the program now ordered will expedite
    settlement of the difficult and troublesome issues here involved. At any rate,
    there is no showing at all adequate to justify resort to the extraordinary
    remedies of mandamus and prohibition. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259, 67
    S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 63
    S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185. The district court finds defendant guilty of "forum
    shopping with a vengeance." 105 F.Supp. at page 902. There is certainly strong
    support for this in the record, not lessened by the defendant's vigorous appeals
    to us during the summer and now. Defendant could more properly push
    forward with the hearings already under way and thus assist in hastening the
    adjudication which all should wish to obtain.
    The orders of injunction are affirmed; the petition for mandamus and/or
    prohibition is denied; and the mandate of this court will issue at once.

    You might also like