Lanova Corporation v. National Supply Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
GIBSON, District Judge.
The plaintiffs have objected to some seven interrogatories filed by defendant. As worded when filed, the first six of them call upon the plaintiffs to express their contentions in respect to the engine of the defendant which is alleged to infringe the two patents in suit. Counsel for defendant admitting (as we understood him) the lack of precision in the words used, verbally proposed to interpret the interrogatories so that in Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 the word “does” is substituted for “will plaintiff contend”, and in No. 2 the words “will plaintiff contend” are stricken out.
T…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Coca Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1939
- Byers Theaters, Inc. v. MurphyDistrict Court, D. West Virginia · 1940
- Chandler v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1940
- United States v. Columbia Steel Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1947
- Gagen v. Northam Warren Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.