Legal Opinion
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided October 28, 1968No. Civ. No. 12788PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ZAMPANO, District Judge.
In this ancillary proceeding to a patent interference contest presently being conducted before the United States Patent Office, the movant, Combustion Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter C.E.), moves to vacate six subpoenas served upon its employees and opposes a motion to produce certain documents under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
An interference proceeding has been succinctly described in In re Natta, 388 F.2d 215 (3 Cir. 1968), as follows:
A patent _ interference is a statutory administrative proceeding, authorized by 35 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Natta v. HoganCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1968
- In Re Natta, Movant in the United States Patent Office Before the Examiner of Interferences, Interference No. 89634. Hogan v. Zletz v. Baxter v. Natta E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- 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
- Korman v. NobileDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Joe R. Brown v. Britt O. Braddick, Joe R. Brown v. Britt O. BraddickCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- John C. Sheehan v. Frank P. DoyleCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
- Meredith D. Shattuck and Ulo Vahtra (Ibm), Movants-Appellees v. Helmut Hoegl and Giacomo Barchietto (Xerox)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Foster Wheeler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Vogel v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.