Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. United States Bottlers Machinery Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
WOODWARD, District Judge.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint must be allowed in part and denied in part.
The motion will be allowed as to Patent No. 1,572,150.
The bill alleges that the defendant is infringing this patent. By a bill of particulars the plaintiff is relying only upon Claim 3. In response to interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff the defendant has produced a blue print of the accused device. In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant contends that the court may consider the bill of complaint, the bill of particulars and the blue prints fur*301nished in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bradt v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1936
3Cited by1 opinion
- Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939