P brought suit to secure a declaratory judgment, averring that D had wrongfully charged P with infringement of D's patent for a hydrometer and had notified the trade of such untrue charges. P asked the court to decide whether the patent is valid and, if so, whether it is infringed by P. P also sought an injunction against D from the publication of such charges. The court found that it had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction, despite the lack of diversity of citizenship. The court declared P's device noninfringing and awarded an accounting for such damages, if any, as had accrued because of the circulation of wrongful charges of infringement. D appealed. D contends that the court was without jurisdiction, because, there was no diversity of citizenship and no federal question. D claimed that the suit is not one arising under the patent laws but under general jurisdiction in equity; and that the Declaratory Judgment Act is ineffective to confer jurisdiction.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.