Wilson

Wilson v. McKinney Mfg. Co.

Good Law
59 F.2d 332·13 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 392·1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3355
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 31, 1932No. 6706California3,236 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

Appellant brought an action based upon a patent for a form of lock which he claims is being infringed by the appellee. The action was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division. Upon motion to quash and to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, the court quashed the service of subpoena and dismissed the action. The sole question presented by the record is whether or not the ap-pellee has “a- regular and established business” in that district within the meaning of that phrase as used in section 48 of the Judicial Code (March 3, 1897, e. 395, 29 St. 695, March 3, 1911, e. 231, § 48, 36 Stat. 1100 ; 28 USCA § 109), which reads as follows: “In suits brought for the infringement of letters patent the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, in law or in equity, in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant, whether a person, partnership, or corporation, shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business. If sueh suit is brought in a district of which the defendant is not an inhabitant, but in which such defendant…

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.