constitute "infringing sales" and an act of infringement within
the meaning of § 1400(b). (Union Asbestos and Rubber Co. v. Evans
Products Co., 7 Cir., 328 F.2d 949.)
Fram is a large manufacturing company whose net sales in 1964
exceeded 54 million dollars. One of the company's fourteen sales
zones is located in this district, and has been located here
since at least 1952. This office has produced gross sales in
excess of $671,000 in a single year. Fram pays all the expenses
of the zone sales office, including secretary's wages, telephone,
telegraph and other office expenses and insurance. Six district
sales managers and two engineers, all full time employees of
Fram, work out of the zone office. The corporate name appears in
both alphabetical and classified telephone directories here. Fram
also maintains a second office within the district at Glen Ellyn,
Illinois. Two salesmen rent this second office and are reimbursed
The facts as recited above clearly establish that Fram has a
regular and established place of business within this district.
The business activities conducted by Fram in this district are
more significant, substantial and permanent in nature than those
of the defendants in the cases cited by Fram, specifically Tyler
Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U.S. 723, 35 S.Ct. 458, 59
L.Ed. 808; Knapp Monarch Co. v. Casco Products Corp., 7 Cir.,
342 F.2d 622; Knapp Monarch Co. v. Dominion Electric Co., 7 Cir.,
365 F.2d 175; and General Radio Co. v. Superior Electric Co., 1 Cir.,
293 F.2d 949.
Defendant Fram's motion to dismiss or transfer for improper
venue is denied.
I find no reason to disturb plaintiff's choice of forum and
grant defendant's motion to transfer this case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the District of Rhode Island. On the
contrary, I believe the interest of justice commands that the
case be tried here. There are presently six cases consolidated
before me involving an alleged infringement of the same patent.
It would be absurd to require plaintiffs to try four or five
cases here and one or two similar suits elsewhere.
The motion of defendant to transfer this case to the District
of Rhode Island is denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.