KIDDE, INC., BY ITS LEFEBURE DIVISION, APPELLANT,
v.
E.F. BAVIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND EDWARD F. BAVIS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court decision where jurisdiction was based in whole or in part on patent law.
Kidde sued Bavis for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging patent invalidity, non-infringement, unfair competition, and interference with busine…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kidde, Inc., and E.F. Bavis & Associates, Inc., both manufacture automatic equipment used by banks at drive-in windows. Bavis, which holds a patent on its equipment, placed in a national banking journal an advertisement that, in effect, threatened suit for contributory infringement against any bank buying a machine that might infringe on Bavis’s patent. Kidde then brought this suit for declaratory and in-junctive relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, alleging that the advertisement was intended by Bavis to be understood as a reference to Kidde’s machine, that Bavis’s patent is invalid or not infringed, and that Bavis’s actions amounted to unfair competition and intentional interference with busi ness relationships. Subject-matter jurisdiction was based in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (patent cases). The District Court dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction over Bavis, an Ohio citizen.
We have no jurisdiction over this appeal. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (1982) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—
(1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title____
Accordingly, we transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Hodel, 815 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1987)
-
Shaw v. Gwatney, 795 F.2d 1351 (8th Cir. 1986)