IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
84 LUMBER COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 01-221
)
MRK TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., )
PSC SCANNING, INC. and )
TELXON CORPORATION, )
)
Defendants. )
Memorandum Opinion and Order
COHILL, D.J.
For the reasons set forth below, we are satisfied that we have subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter and that it has been properly removed to this court.
Background
Defendants PSC Scanning, Inc. ("PSC"), and Telxon Corporation ("Telxon") manufacture
hand-held laser devices which are used to scan bar codes on merchandise. MRK Technologies,
Ltd. ("MRK"), distributes Telxon equipment. Plaintiff 84 Lumber Company ("84 Lumber")
purchased equipment from these companies (collectively "the defendants"), to use in its bar code
scanning system. Subsequently, 84 Lumber was one of a number of defendants sued for patent
infringement by the Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP ("Lemelson"), in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the "Lemelson Suit").
84 Lumber settled the Lemelson Suit for forty thousand dollars. It then filed a one count
complaint against the defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,
Pennsylvania, alleging breach of the implied warranty against infringement, 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2312 (c),
and seeking monetary damages in the amount of the settlement.
SNIPPETS:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
For the reasons set forth below, we are satisfied that we have subject matter jurisdiction
Defendants PSC Scanning, Inc., and Telxon Corporation manufacture
Ltd., distributes Telxon equipment.
Plaintiff 84 Lumber Company
84 Lumber was one of a number of defendants sued for patent
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the "Lemelson Suit").
Pennsylvania, alleging breach of the implied warranty against infringement, 13 Pa.C.S.A.
Defendants timely filed a notice of removal in this Court, asserting federal jurisdiction
The statute provides, in pertinent part, that "he district courts shall have original
States Supreme Court addressed the question of when a case arises under federal patent law:
Thus, if 84 Lumber's complaint arises under federal patent law under § 1338, it has properly
privilege will be defeated by one construction,
Christianson, 486 U.S. at 807.
a district court's federal-question jurisdiction extends over "only those
action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
of federal law," in that "federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded.
84 Lumber contends that its claims arise solely under state contract law,
therefore are without subject matter jurisdiction and must remand to state court.
shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person.
Warranty of merchant regularly dealing in goods.
and appellate jurisdiction was proper in the Federal Circuit.
Lemelson's assertion that defendants' products infringed his patents.
|
