From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Eric Hill Co., Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 27, 1951
11 F.R.D. 290 (N.D. Ohio 1951)

Opinion

         Action by Charles C. Hall, doing business as The Hallcraft Company, against John S. Kish and another to obtain a determination that defendants' patent was not infringed by articles manufactured and sold by plaintiff and that defendants' patent was invalid, and for injunctive relief. Defendants filed a demand for jury trial and plaintiff moved to strike that demand. The District Court, Jones, Chief Judge, held that the action as developed by plaintiff was an equitable action and was not triable to a jury even though it was a declaratory judgment action.

         Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' demand for jury trial granted.

          A. L. Ely, Albert L. Ely, Jr., and Ely & Frye, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

          John Ruffalo, John Ruffalo, Jr., Youngstown, Ohio, for defendant.


          JONES, Chief Judge.

         In this action plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring (1) that defendants' patent is not infringed by articles manufactured and sold by plaintiff, (2) that said patent is invalid and void, and asking certain injunctive relief.

         Defendants in their answer merely deny the allegations made in the complaint, and ask only that the complaint be dismissed.

         Defendants, however, have filed a demand for jury trial, and plaintiff moves to strike this demand.

          Even though this is a declaratory judgment action, defendants are entitled to a jury trial if such is provided for in Rules 38 and 39. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 57, 28 U.S.C.A. However, it is quite clear that a party may demand a jury trial in accordance with Rules 38 and 39, only if the action before enactment of these rules was triable to a jury. Equitable actions are still tried by the court. Ryan Distributing Corp. v. Caley, D.C., 51 F.Supp. 377.

         This action as developed by plaintiff has all the earmarks of an equitable action and is not triable to a jury. Beaunit Mills, Inc., v. Eday Fabrics Sales Corp., 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 563; Bellavance v. Plastic-Craft Novelty Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 37. If defendants had counterclaimed for damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.A. § 67, they would be entitled to a jury trial of all issues involved in the damage counterclaim. Since they have not done so, this action calls only for exercise of this court's equitable powers and should be tried by the court.

         The motion will be granted.


Summaries of

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Eric Hill Co., Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 27, 1951
11 F.R.D. 290 (N.D. Ohio 1951)
Case details for

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Eric Hill Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SMITH, KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. ERIC HILL CO., Inc., et al.

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Feb 27, 1951

Citations

11 F.R.D. 290 (N.D. Ohio 1951)
11 F.R.D. 290
88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 548

Citing Cases

In re Lockwood

Finally, American argues that two early district court decisions concerning the right to a jury trial in…