CJS DECLJUDS § 100

26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 100

Corpus Juris Secundum
Database updated April 2007

Declaratory Judgments
John R. Kennel, J.D. and Jane E. Lehman, J.D. of the National Legal Research Group

II. SUBJECTS OF DECLARATORY RELIEF
F. Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks
1. Patents

Topic Summary References

§ 100. Patent infringement—Claim of infringement as condition precedent

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Declaratory Judgment

234
Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act as applied to patents, some charge of infringement, express or implied, is a necessary prerequisite to the existence of jurisdiction in the court.

A justiciable[FN1] claim for patent invalidity[FN2] or infringement[FN3] must show a claim of infringement before the suit is filed.[FN4] A showing of a reasonable apprehension of an infringement claim is sufficient.[FN5] Infringing conduct is not a prerequisite,[FN6] but the assertion by a nonparty patentee's licensee is insufficient.[FN7]

The claim of infringement need not be formally asserted.[FN8] It is unnecessary that notice be given directly to the plaintiff,[FN9] or that any threat be made to sue the plaintiff,[FN10] or that suit be instituted against the plaintiff.[FN11] Notice to the plaintiff's customers[FN12] or in a trade journal[FN13] is sufficient.

In addition to the charge-of-infringement prerequisite, plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement must show they have actually produced or have made active preparation to produce the accused article.[FN14] There is no justiciability if the plaintiff is merely considering the advisability of commencing production.[FN15]

A patent holder has a right to investigate other devices of a nature similar to those it is manufacturing, and such investigation is not a threat of infringement authorizing a declaratory judgment action against the patent holder.[FN16] A mere offer to sell a license to another will not sustain a declaratory judgment action.[FN17] If a charge of patent infringement is asserted against the use of a product by a particular customer, no independent charges of patent infringement unrelated to the litigation are implied against the manufacturer of the product sufficient to support a declaratory judgment.[FN18]

It is immaterial to a plaintiff's right to maintain the action that the patentee did not learn until the complaint was filed that the plaintiff was practicing the process commercially[FN19] so long as the patentee asserts that use of its patents constitutes an infringement and threatens suit.[FN20] A charge of infringement against a specific patent does not call into contest the infringement of other patents.[FN21]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Competitor had reasonable apprehension that patent holder would sue it for patent infringement in future, for purpose of determination of whether sufficient case or controversy existed between parties for competitor to invoke jurisdiction of court under Declaratory Judgment Act; even though patent holder repeatedly stated that it did not intend to sue competitor for patent infringement, patent holder exhibited willingness to protect that technology by filing earlier lawsuit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and by informing competitor's clients that competitor was using patent holder's technology without license. Vanguard Research, Inc. v. Peat, Inc., 304 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] U.S.—Robin Products Co. v. Tomecek, 465 F.2d 1193, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 135 (6th Cir. 1972); Leesona Corp. v. Concordia Mfg. Co., 312 F. Supp. 392, 165 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 386 (D.R.I. 1970).

[FN2] U.S.—Tuthill v. Wilsey, 182 F.2d 1006, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 230 (7th Cir. 1950); Treemond Co. v. Schering Corp., 122 F.2d 702, 50 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 593 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1941); W. R. Grace & Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., 319 F. Supp. 307, 167 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 619 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Components, Inc. v. Western Elec. Co., 318 F. Supp. 959, 167 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 583 (D. Me. 1970).

[FN3] U.S.—Drew Chemical Co. v. Hercules Inc., 407 F.2d 360, 160 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 705 (2d Cir. 1969); Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 356 F.2d 449, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 308 (7th Cir. 1966); Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. of America, 166 F.2d 286, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 337 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948); Williams Gold Refining Co., Inc. v. Semi-Alloys Inc., 434 F. Supp. 453, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 37 (W.D.N.Y. 1977), adhered to on reconsideration, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 100, 1978 WL 21425 (W.D.N.Y. 1978) and dismissed, 580 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1978); Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. v. Foster Grant Co., Inc., 432 F. Supp. 956, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 220 (D. Del. 1977), aff'd, 577 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1978); Components, Inc. v. Western Elec. Co., 52 F.R.D. 379, 169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 23 (D. Me. 1971).

[FN4] U.S.—American Needle & Novelty Co. v. Schuessler Knitting Mills, Inc., 379 F.2d 376, 154 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 128 (7th Cir. 1967); Northern Telecom Inc. v. Wang Laboratories, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 1026, 222 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 546 (D. Mass. 1982); Tokyo Shibaura Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 404 F. Supp. 547, 188 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 55 (D. Del. 1975), judgment aff'd, 548 F.2d 88, 193 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 73 (3d Cir. 1977).

[FN5] U.S.—International Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623 F.2d 1207, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 772 (7th Cir. 1980); Milton Roy Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 418 F. Supp. 975, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 433 (D. Del. 1976); Tubeco, Inc. v. Crippen Pipe Fabrication Corp., 402 F. Supp. 838, 187 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 746 (E.D.N.Y. 1975), aff'd, 538 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1976); Japan Gas Lighter Ass'n v. Ronson Corp., 257 F. Supp. 219, 150 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 589 (D.N.J. 1966).

[FN6] U.S.—Rengo Co. Ltd. v. Molins Mach. Co., Inc., 657 F.2d 535, 211 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 60 A.L.R. Fed. 534 (3d Cir. 1981); Super Products Corp. v. D P Way Corp., 546 F.2d 748, 192 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 417 (7th Cir. 1976); Wallace & Tiernan Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 291 F. Supp. 217, 160 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).

[FN7] U.S.—Acme Highway Products Corp. v. Maurer, 524 F. Supp. 1130, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 44 (D.D.C. 1981).

[FN8] U.S.—Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 200 F.2d 876, 95 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406 (2d Cir. 1952); Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. of America, 166 F.2d 286, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 337 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948); E.W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 102 F.2d 105, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1939); Acme Highway Products Corp. v. Maurer, 532 F. Supp. 577, 221 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 191 (D.D.C. 1982); Ethicon, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 369 F. Supp. 934, 180 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 773 (D.N.J. 1973); Owatonna Mfg. Co. v. Melroe Co., 301 F. Supp. 1296, 163 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 308 (D. Minn. 1969); Rhodes Pharmacal Co. v. Dolcin Corp., 91 F. Supp. 87, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 148 (S.D.N.Y. 1950).

[FN9] U.S.—Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. of America, 166 F.2d 286, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 337 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948); E.W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 102 F.2d 105, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1939); United Merchants and Mfrs., Inc. v. Henderson, 495 F. Supp. 444, 210 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 274 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Rhodes Pharmacal Co. v. Dolcin Corp., 91 F. Supp. 87, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 148 (S.D.N.Y. 1950); National Transformer Corp. v. Ranney, 86 F. Supp. 57, 82 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 433 (N.D. Ohio 1949).

[FN10] U.S.—International Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623 F.2d 1207, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 772 (7th Cir. 1980); Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Spunize Co. of America, 268 F.2d 522, 122 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 110 (2d Cir. 1959); Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. of America, 166 F.2d 286, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 337 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948); E.W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 102 F.2d 105, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1939); Williams Gold Refining Co., Inc. v. Semi-Alloys Inc., 434 F. Supp. 453, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 37 (W.D.N.Y. 1977), adhered to on reconsideration, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 100, 1978 WL 21425 (W.D.N.Y. 1978) and dismissed, 580 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1978); Japan Gas Lighter Ass'n v. Ronson Corp., 257 F. Supp. 219, 150 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 589 (D.N.J. 1966).

[FN11] U.S.—Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Spunize Co. of America, 268 F.2d 522, 122 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 110 (2d Cir. 1959); Clayton v. Swift & Co., 132 F. Supp. 154, 106 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 35 (E.D. Va. 1955); Girdler Corporation v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 56 F. Supp. 871, 62 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 450 (D. Del. 1944).

[FN12] U.S.—TRW, Inc. v. Ellipse Corp., 495 F.2d 314, 181 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 693 (7th Cir. 1974); Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. of America, 166 F.2d 286, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 337 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948); E.W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 102 F.2d 105, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1939); A. Belanger & Sons, Inc. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., 116 F. Supp. 127, 99 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 45 (D. Mass. 1953), judgment aff'd, 209 F.2d 169, 100 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 75 (1st Cir. 1954); Kobre v. Photoral Corp., 100 F. Supp. 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1951); Remington Products Corp. v. American Aerovap, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 644, 89 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 544 (S.D.N.Y. 1951), order aff'd, 192 F.2d 872, 91 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 312 (2d Cir. 1951).

[FN13] U.S.—Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. of America, 166 F.2d 286, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 337 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1948); Leach v. Ross Heater & Manufacturing Co., 104 F.2d 88, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 558 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1939); Rhodes Pharmacal Co. v. Dolcin Corp., 91 F. Supp. 87, 86 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 148 (S.D.N.Y. 1950); Ice Plant Equipment Co. v. Martocello, 43 F. Supp. 281, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 375 (E.D. Pa. 1941).

[FN14] U.S.—Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 439 F.2d 871, 168 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 737 (1st Cir. 1971); Blessings Corp. v. Altman, 373 F. Supp. 802, 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).

[FN15] U.S.—Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 439 F.2d 871, 168 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 737 (1st Cir. 1971); Blessings Corp. v. Altman, 373 F. Supp. 802, 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).

[FN16] U.S.—American Needle & Novelty Co. v. Schuessler Knitting Mills, Inc., 379 F.2d 376, 154 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 128 (7th Cir. 1967); Thermo-Plastics Corp. v. International Pulverizing Corp., 42 F. Supp. 408, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 56 (D.N.J. 1941).

[FN17] U.S.—Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 356 F.2d 449, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 308 (7th Cir. 1966); Dr. Beck & Co. G. M. B. H. v. General Elec. Co., 210 F. Supp. 86, 136 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), judgment aff'd, 317 F.2d 538, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 619 (2d Cir. 1963); Alamo Refining Co. v. Shell Development Co., 99 F. Supp. 790, 90 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 326 (D. Del. 1951).

[FN18] U.S.—TRW, Inc. v. Ellipse Corp., 495 F.2d 314, 181 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 693 (7th Cir. 1974).

[FN19] U.S.—Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. American Anode, 137 F.2d 68, 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 456 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1943).

[FN20] U.S.—Henry L. Crowley & Co. v. Philips Laboratories, 104 F. Supp. 840, 93 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 344 (S.D.N.Y. 1952).

[FN21] U.S.—Research Electronics & Devices Co. v. Neptune Meter Co., 156 F. Supp. 484, 115 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 327 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), order aff'd, 264 F.2d 246, 120 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 508 (2d Cir. 1959).