Koratron Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Lion Uniform, Inc., a Corporation

Good Law
449 F.2d 337·171 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 452·1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7718
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 7, 197125777_1California612 words

Opinion

Opinion

Weick, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is the venue of an action for infringement of a process patent, brought by the patentee, Koratron, in one District where the alleged infringer has a regular and established place of business and sells the product, but actually manufactures the product in another District.

The District Court, relying on the decision of Judge Robson in Lyon v. General Motors Corp., 200 F.Supp. 89 (N. D.Ill. 1961) dismissed the complaint for lack of venue. Koratron appealed. We affirm.

Koratron in its brief frankly admits:

The pertinent statute provides as follows:

This is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions. Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U.S. 260 , 81 S.Ct. 557 , 5 L.Ed.2d 546 (1961); Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 , 77 S.Ct. 787 , 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957).

Koratron is a California corporation, located in California. It owns U.S. Patent No. 2,974,432, covering a process of making “permanent press” garments.

Lion is an Ohio corporation with its principal office and place of business in Dayton, Ohio. It manufactures garments in Williamsburg, Kentucky. It has a warehouse in San…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.