Legal Opinion
International Business Machines Corp. v. Sperry Rand Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided October 26, 1967No. Misc. No. 40PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LAYTON, District Judge.
This is a motion for production under Rule 34 F.R.Civ.P. by International Business Machines (hereafter IBM), assignee of the Senior party Williams in a patent interference No. 93,544. The Junior party is Sperry Rand Corporation (hereafter Sperry), assignee of Eckert et al.
IBM’s motion for production is on a broad scale. Curiously enough, a patent examiner in an interference proceeding has no power to compel discovery on the part of the parties before him. However, such power is apparently granted to a United States District Court having jurisdiction…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Giulio Natta, (Appellees in No. 16003) v. Alex Zletz and Standard Oil Company of Indiana, (Appellants in No. 16003)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1967
- Gladrow v. WeiszCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
- In Re NattaDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1967
3Cited by3 opinions
- Champion International Corp. v. International Paper Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1980
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1968
- Frilette v. KimberlinDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1973