Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMPUTER OPERATIONS v. DIGITAL EQUIP. CORP.

January 21, 1975

COMPUTER OPERATIONS, INC., a corporation of Maryland, Plaintiff,
v.
DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation of Massachusetts, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: PLATT

Memorandum and Order

 Defendant moves under Title 28 U.S.C. ยง 1404 (a) for an order transferring the above-captioned action to the District of Massachusetts.

 Plaintiff's complaint sets forth two claims against the defendant; the first for a declaratory judgment of the invalidity and non-infringement of a patent held by the defendant and the second charging the defendant with violations of the antitrust laws.

 Attached to defendant's motion papers is an affidavit of Mr. Thomas C. Stockebrand who makes the following statements in support of defendant's motion:

 
1. He has been employed by the defendant since November, 1961, in defendant's facilities at Maynard, Massachusetts.
 
2. Prior to his present employment, he worked at the Lincoln Laboratory of MIT in Lexington, Massachusetts.
 
3. Such records of (his) work in connection with magnetic tape units, as are in his, defendant's or his prior employer's possession are in Massachusetts.
 
4. Messrs. Kenneth H. Olsen and Richard L. Best, president and chief engineer, respectively, of defendant reside and maintain offices in Massachusetts.
 
5. Defendant manufactures in Massachusetts magnetic tape units of the type involved in this patent infringement suit and does not manufacture such tape units in New York.

 Nowhere in such affidavit is there a statement that Messrs. Stockebrand, Olsen or Best will be witnesses in this case, nor is there any statement as to any anticipated testimony that any of them or anyone else may give in this action.

 In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff served and filed an affidavit of one Stephen Silverman who alleges that:

 
1. He is the president and co-founder of plaintiff.
 
2. He "will be able to testify as to the state of the prior art involved and [his] belief that defendant's patent is invalid because of this prior art, which [he has] studied * * * can testify as to the business of plaintiff * * * [has] read the figures set forth in the affidavit of Allen Green, Esq., in opposition to his motion to transfer and can state * * * current assets, net earnings and number of employees are correct."
 
3. "Besides [his] testimony, plaintiff expects to present that of Professor Charles Molnar * * * [who] will testify that he worked with the alleged inventor, Mr. Stockebrand, during the development of the LINC system, that the LINC system was publicly disclosed more than one year before the filing of the patent in suit and that Mr. Stockebrand had reason to know of the same * * * [and] will further testify with regard to the technical details of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.