Legal Opinion

De Graffenried v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 6, 1983No. 541-80CPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY

SETO, Judge:

In this patent case, plaintiff, Albert L. de Graffenried, seeks compensation for the de*642fendant’s alleged unauthorized taking of property rights in U.S. Patent No. 3,217,568 (hereinafter the ’568 patent) entitled a “Device for Controlling the Deep Boring Operations in a Rotating Object,” issued to Mr. de Graffenried. Plaintiff asserts that certain machining tools used by the government to bore the barrels of huge Naval and Army artillery, infringe his patent 1.

Defendant moves for a court order to compel plaintiff to (1) answer questions posed during oral…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
  2. Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Orthopedic Equipment Company, Inc., and Marriott Corporation, and Cross-Appellees v. The United States, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  4. Meese v. Eaton Manufacturing Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1964
  5. Nicholas Straussler v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
  2. Baxter International Inc. v. Cobe Lab., Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1991
  3. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. v. Itron, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API