IP
Gustav Bucky et al., Appellants, v. Carl J. Sebo et al., Respondents
276 A.D.2d 545·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1950·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Gustav Bucky et al., Appellants, v. Carl J. Sebo et al., Respondents.
First Department,
March 28, 1950.
H. Russell Winokur of counsel (Horace T. Herrick and Harry J. Walters with him on the brief; Paul Weiss, Wharton & Garrison, attorneys), for appellants.
Emanuel R. Posmack (Abraham S. Nydick with him on the brief), for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
.‘í‘^!^Utí(K Y P~7~i~1Ih. f~ d1~ d~Mi~3~dnt~' re1atii~g~ a~iii~t~ ilie d~e~ni~ ~i1~ • uüHmamwH'fM. i¡Rdsmih1S-> (tJibrahám-iSwNyüoU wi4hiMmü<hháhe bfief-)',''for'respíóndentd.v.'n (Mi. --.1 miil í-m, mí giiíw/Esohjr-) '(fjiuda Fedéfal1 'tío'tíf4s( 465 eüjtiin1 i'nf íiiígeiheüt11 for£! !4i6 Y'ateb.Wdl'Bevi,eéS5 This action in the State court cdVeTsÁ ffééi8E'dtír2&^ iMhícFThe licensing’!agreement’ was' in -force:'- The’úñfrin'geínembnnitiifol- lowed a cancellation of the licensing agreement because, of faih n'refAfi.theScfihseesitOiipayfirOyaltiesvt ylwmfmiumu ■taomgbij L i« t The í defendants.! ¡ assetot < the.
invalidity - oh :ito vpafbjntsnim ¡both suits. .m.-H-ni noiiiifio m<¡ í iíü*n ---nnh mi-vh; hí vv rí bast abnl The Special Term granted a stay of this action
pending trial of the Federal suit, although it" found that the Federal action wonld nots.de:tei;iAine.nll of th;e¡ issues ¿n tbisiQaseniWiO W-niothat this was error. It has lon^ be^n,!(tlro. l.aw(,of ^this (S^ate .|hat a
licensee is estopped from „ chaüehging' the1‘validity of" k patent, until he merit ,(se,e -Zdf#:§SW Yy>,- r o^o^Qíil, %MM'*í3Púk%AP> *5- A.wML: (see Farmsworth v. Boro Oil & Gas Co. 216 N. Y. 40; Saltus v. Belford Co., 133 N. Y. 499; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, Marston v. Swett, 66 N. Y. 206).
In Tams-Witmark Music Library, Inc., v. New Opera Co. (298 N. Y. 163, 173) appear®«to ha‘vei,'b'é*en- unneties'SaPy;. tb’ -the' ""de'ciíéír0tt!;lin!Í áMSLW§tWcti!r']t case,,(supm). ¡There- the court was, considering - the- rights of.a licensee under an expired copyright of an opera .’withiir the public- domain,.. The MacGregor and Katsinger. cases- (supra) hayCibeOh; construed] by lafp^Fpderub decision to be,.confined to SjfituabjDjas fipyolying, fprjce¡¡fixing;-os - ;othor ¡ restraints ¡¡of trade ‘(see Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, 176 F. 2d 799, centiorari granted 338 U. S. 942).,,. In- such ,circnnir stances there may be a conflict between the public interest sought to be served by the Sherman Act and the doctrine of estoppel- aforesaid. TlieTattef ds re‘qtiiredi to-yield in favor of .&e,'puMiG‘policy>beMnd,dhe,''aiititrtiet.úaws/ In -the'absence of ÍWe-the license agreement .remaips .not,, (see Harley C. Loney Co. v. Perfect Equipment Corp. 178 F. 2d 165)
L pf, bslqppei,, is, js^s plcbr.bbatbhRie,, is p^goj^t „in( staying the present,¡action „nptil after b^í^Píí the Federal .suit. ..Whether such .estoppel exists on the.ti-iaLof this action in the State court.
hbiCiie; b\’^Ór¡ appeufed,^romj '^jqul^bp, reverse/!,, with. $20 costs ancl disbursements,.and the igotion deified. f 7, ,7'
¡.^Peo^,, B. J.. .Poke, Gos^r,,, G-M*fUAN .p.pd^.yAn^IIooK.His,,, ,J,J„ concur-..' , j,,,•!!.‘ '¡:,Y
Order unanimously reversed, with $20‘costs and.disbursements -tfii-bhG,appellants,¡apid-'ibé/imotioii: denied.., [See1277.-iA.ppi ,Biv. J75.7 ¡.Q-' a i,, - ¡i ¡I. ¡í ,1 e, 11. 7 i'.i!!',-Y v ! ---i <- - 'A ¡¡r,; ¡¡';',