William Gluckin & Co., Inc. v. International Playtex Corporation
160 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 513, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9168, 407 F.2d 177 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In patent infringement litigation, a court may enjoin a first-filed action against a customer in favor of a second-filed declaratory judgment action by the manufacturer if special circumstances, such as the balance of convenience, strongly favor the second forum.
Facts:
- International Playtex Corporation (Playtex), a patent holder, had its principal place of business in New York, with manufacturing plants in Georgia.
- William Gluckin & Co. (Gluckin), a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York City, manufactured a brassiere.
- F. W. Woolworth & Co. (Woolworth), a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, sold the brassiere manufactured by Gluckin in its retail stores, including one in Gainesville, Georgia.
- On April 25, 1968, Playtex sued Woolworth, a customer of Gluckin, for patent infringement in Gainesville, Georgia.
- On May 28, 1968, Gluckin, the manufacturer, filed a separate action against Playtex in New York.
- The key business activities, records, and witnesses for both Playtex and Gluckin, including the inventor and designers, were located in or near New York City.
- Gluckin was not licensed to do business in Georgia and was not subject to suit there.
Procedural Posture:
- Playtex filed a patent infringement suit against F. W. Woolworth & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, a federal trial court.
- Subsequently, William Gluckin & Co. filed a declaratory judgment action against Playtex in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, another federal trial court.
- In the New York action, the district court granted Gluckin's motion for a preliminary injunction, which ordered Playtex to stop prosecuting the Georgia case until the New York case was resolved.
- Playtex, as appellant, appealed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Gluckin is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by enjoining a first-filed patent infringement suit against a customer in favor of a second-filed declaratory judgment action brought by the manufacturer when the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favors the second forum?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge
No. A district court does not abuse its discretion by departing from the first-to-file rule when the first suit is a 'customer action' and the balance of convenience clearly favors the second-filed suit. The general rule is that the first-filed suit should have priority, but this rule is not rigid and yields to considerations of judicial administration and convenience. Special circumstances justifying an exception include when the first suit is against a customer rather than the manufacturer, who is the real party in interest. Here, the court found that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored the New York action because both parties had their principal places of business there, most witnesses and evidence were there, and the manufacturer (Gluckin) was a party to the New York suit but not the Georgia suit. The court found Playtex's reasons for suing in Georgia unpersuasive and concluded that because the 'whole of the war and all the parties to it' are in the Southern District of New York, it was a proper exercise of discretion to enjoin the Georgia action.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'customer suit' exception to the first-to-file rule, particularly in patent litigation. It affirms that courts have broad discretion to look beyond the filing dates of competing lawsuits to determine the most logical and efficient venue for resolving the core dispute. The decision discourages patent holders from engaging in forum shopping by suing a peripheral party, like a retailer, in an inconvenient forum, instead favoring consolidation of the dispute between the principal parties (the patentee and the manufacturer) in the most convenient jurisdiction. This precedent reinforces the idea that wise judicial administration values substance and convenience over a mechanical application of procedural rules.
