are no longer relevant, so I consider only whether the declaratory judgment action here would serve any useful purpose and whether fairness and judicial economy are served by entertaining it. “The purposes of declaratory judgments are to ‘clarify[ ] and settl[e] the legal relations at issue’ and to ‘terminate and afford relief from uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.’ ” Tempco, 819 F.2d at 749. Where the substantive suit would resolve the issues raised by the declaratory judgment action, the declaratory judgment action “serve[s] no useful purpose” because the controversy has “ripened” and the uncertainty and anticipation of litigation are alleviated. Id.; see also Associated Mills, Inc. v. Regina Co., Inc., 675 F.Supp. 446, 448 (N.D.Ill.1987) (<HOLDING>); Wireless Marketing Corp. v. Cherokee, Inc.,
holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that filing of infringement action twelve days after complaint for declaratory judgment obviated the need for a declaratory judgment in this case holding that the declaratory judgment act is a procedural device holding thirdparty complaint proper in action for declaratory judgment even though the defendant would have no pecuniary liability to plaintiffs