Legal Opinion
Paul v. Sinnott
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 7, 1963No. Civ. A. 62-754PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARSH, District Judge.
In this action plaintiffs allege infringement of their patented method of producing fibrous tape. At this stage of the proceedings we are called upon to adjudicate plaintiffs’ “Motion for Inspection and Photographing”, pursuant to Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P. In their motion plaintiffs request an order requiring defendants to:
“1. Permit plaintiff, THEODORE R. PAUL, his attorneys, and experts retained by him or plaintiff, PITTSBURGH ELECTRICAL INSULATION CO., INC., to enter the premises at 8050 Saltsburg Road, Monroeville, Pennsylvania, to inspect and observe any and all…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. National Steel Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1960
- Cities Service Oil Co. v. Celanese Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1950
3Cited by8 opinions
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Rhinehart v. Seattle Times Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1982
- Stamicarbon, N v. V. American Cyanamid CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Giulio Natta, Piero Pino and Georgio Mazzanti, Ex Rel. Interference 89,634 v. Alex Zletz and Standard Oil Company of IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1968
- Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v. Holden's Foundation Seeds, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.