Paying an agent who is also employed by another corporation to
solicit orders to be executed at its home office and sharing
expenses with another corporation of an office in the district in
which a suit for infringement of patent is brought
held in
this case not to amount to having a regular and established place
of business which would subject a foreign corporation to the
jurisdiction of the federal court under the Act of March 31, 1897,
c. 395, 29 Stat. 695.
Where an agent solicits an order in one state and forwards it to
his principal at its home office in another state and the goods are
shipped direct by the principal, the sale is consummated in the
latter state, and does not constitute an infringement of patent in
the former state.
Where appeal is properly prosecuted and certiorari is also asked
from the same judgment of the circuit court of appeals, the latter
will be denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 236 U. S. 724
Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS, by direction of
the Court:
Alleging infringement of its patent, and asking appropriate
relief, appellant, an Ohio corporation, instituted this proceeding
in equity against the Ludlow-Saylor Wire Company, a corporation
organized under the laws of Missouri, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Objection to the
jurisdiction was sustained, and a direct appeal to this Court
allowed.
The cause is properly here upon the appeal, and the application
for certiorari heretofore presented (No. 622) must be denied. The
Act of March 3, 1897, 29 Stat. 695, c. 395, provides:
"That in suits brought for the infringement of letters patent,
the circuit [now 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."
Evidence was introduced to show that appellee had the requisite
place of business in New York City, and also had committed an act
of infringement by making a sale there. The trial court held
neither claim was established.
Page 236 U. S. 725
The Wire Company is a manufacturer of screens, with plant and
home office at St. Louis, Missouri. For some eighteen months in
1911 and 1912, it employed Guerin, upon whom process was served, as
"Eastern Representative," paying him a small salary, commission on
sales, and traveling expenses. During this period, he was also
employed by another corporation which rented a room in the building
at No. 30 Church Street, New York City, and there he maintained
headquarters as representative of both concerns -- the rent and
stenographer's wages being apportioned between them according to
agreement. His duty to appellee was "to solicit orders [and]
forward them when received to the home office for execution."
Considering all the facts disclosed, we think them insufficient to
support the allegation that appellee had a regular and established
place of business at 30 Church Street within the intendment of the
statute.
Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy
Railway, 205 U. S. 530,
205 U. S.
533.
The circumstances attending only one sale appear in the record,
and this was negotiated by the purchaser in order that it might
afford the basis for a suit. Guerin received and forwarded, and his
principal accepted, the order for goods, which were thereafter
manufactured and shipped by express to the purchaser in New York
City. This sale was consummated at St. Louis, and did not
constitute an infringement of appellant's patent within the
district where suit was brought.
Westinghouse Electric &
Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 116 F. 641.
The decree is
Affirmed.
