Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Liqui-Box Corp. v. Reid Valve Co., Inc.
Citations: 672 F. Supp. 198; 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1372; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12622Docket: Civ. A. 87-1549
Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania; October 1, 1987; Federal District Court
Defendant Reid Valve Company, a California corporation, moved to dismiss a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Liqui-Box Corporation, an Ohio corporation, on the grounds of improper venue. Venue for patent infringement cases is determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which allows a suit to be brought where the defendant resides or where acts of infringement occur and the defendant has a regular business presence. The court established that Reid Valve, being incorporated in California, does not reside in the Western District of Pennsylvania; however, it does maintain a manufacturing facility in Leetsdale, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff bears the burden to prove proper venue. The pivotal question is whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that Reid Valve committed acts of infringement in this district. The court noted that it need not evaluate the merits of the plaintiff's claim at this stage. The plaintiff alleged infringement of Patent No. 270,136, related to a design for a plastic container, asserting that it produces a similar product and has evidence in the form of photographs showing both its and the defendant's products. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that Reid Valve manufactured the allegedly infringing item in Leetsdale and that sales occurred in the district through a manager. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff argues that venue is appropriately established in this district. Kenneth K. Chin, the General Sales Manager and Operations Manager for the defendant, submitted an affidavit affirming that the water bottle depicted in Exhibits 2 and 3 is identified as the "Reid No. 9 bottle." He states that the sole mold for this bottle is located in Texas, and all sales have been conducted from the defendant's Texas office, with no sales or solicitations occurring in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the Reid No. 9 bottles were exclusively manufactured in Texas. The plaintiff did not submit any opposing affidavits or documentation, leading the Court to accept Chin's statements as true. Consequently, the Court determines that the plaintiff has not established proper venue since it cannot prove acts of infringement related to the Reid No. 9 bottle in this jurisdiction. The plaintiff claims an independent basis for venue concerning another bottle, the "Design V bottle," which it alleges infringes Patent No. 270,136. Michelle Willson, the International Marketing Coordinator for the plaintiff, provided an affidavit indicating that carriers informed her that Design V bottles are shipped from and priced "FOB Pittsburgh." However, the complaint does not mention the Design V bottle, and the plaintiff has not amended its complaint to include it as a basis for patent infringement. The plaintiff argues that the complaint can be interpreted to include the Design V bottle; however, the Court disagrees, noting that the complaint explicitly references the Reid No. 9 bottle. The Court concludes that the allegations concerning the Design V bottle are not pertinent to the current action, which solely addresses the Reid No. 9 bottle. Plaintiff argues that its complaint should encompass all acts of infringement related to the defendant's manufacture of plastic bottles, despite not specifying which bottles are involved. Citing *Conley v. Gibson*, plaintiff asserts that federal pleading rules only require a "short and plain statement" to provide fair notice of the claim. However, the Court emphasizes that while notice pleading is allowed, it must still provide adequate information for the defendant to prepare a defense. The Court finds that the plaintiff's vague assertions hinder the defendant's ability to engage in meaningful discovery, as they lack specifics about which bottles are allegedly infringing. Consequently, the Court determines that the plaintiff has not established proper venue for the claims related solely to the Reid No. 9 bottle and that the plaintiff's intention not to amend the complaint regarding the Design V bottle makes further amendment futile. Therefore, the Court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss the case.