STANLEY PINCUS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE JAMES T. CARLISLE, AND THE HONORABLE JOHN D. WESSEL, JUDGES OF THE FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Copyright Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Since the fundamental nature of the plaintiffs’ claim against petitioner Stanley Pincus in Count I of the complaint involves rights equivalent to those protected by federal patent and copyright law, we conclude that Count I, as against Pincus, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a); Garrido v. Burger King Corp., 558 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc., 405 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Topolos v. Caldewey, 698 F. 2d 991 (9th Cir.1983).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition with directions to strike Count I of the complaint as against petitioner Pincus, and we quash that portion of the trial court’s March 7, 1991, Order for Temporary Injunction insofar as it prohibits petitioner from using the plaintiffs’ patented bars and copyrighted student textbooks, instructor’s manuals, sales and placement manuals, beverage management seminar materials and catalogs. This decision has no affect on Counts II and III of the complaint.
DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree that Count I, insofar as it seeks injunctive relief against the petitioner based upon the plaintiffs’ copyright and patent rights, presents a claim outside the state court’s jurisdiction because of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts. This is so, in my view, because the only apparent legal basis for injunctive relief against petitioner in Count I is the plaintiffs’ federal copyright and patent rights. There is no claim of breach of contract or other state statutory or common law basis for such relief against the petitioner set out in Count I.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…erved at the trial level. At the sentencing hearing, Moore and his attorney only objected to the restitution for the tools. Since they did not object to the restitution or the amount for the victim’s truck, the objection is waived, Anthony v. State, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and proeedurally barred. Brooks v. State, 605 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Moore’s other claims are without merit. SENTENCE AFFIRMED; RESTITUTION REVERSED. HARRIS, C.J., an…
-
State v. Southpointe Pharmacy, 636 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and we are without jurisdiction to decide the merits in such cases on appeal.1 A civil action arising under the “[cjopyright law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts. See ... Pincus v. Carlisle, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Garrido v. Burger King Corp., 558 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).” Sparta Surf, Inc. v. Korda, 599 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Until January 1, 1978, state courts had jurisdiction to decide common law copyright claims which we…
-
Page v. McMULLAN, 849 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…miss was denied and that ruling is challenged through the instant petition for writ of prohibition. We have jurisdiction. Department of Revenue v. Eastern American Technologies Corp., 762 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Pincus v. Carlisle, 585 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (granting prohibition where trial court lacked jurisdiction over one count of multi-count complaint). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) permits the “relation back” of an amended pleading when the claim “arose out of the c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc., 405 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Garrido v. Burger King Corp., 558 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Topolos v. Caldewey, 698 F.2d 991 (9th Cir. 1983)