Standard Oil Co. v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation
District Court, S.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
FITZHENRY, District Judge.
This cause comes on to be heard upon defendant’s motion for a further hill of particulars and defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s interrogatorios. Upon a former hearing a motion of defendant for a rule upon plaintiff to file a bill of particulars was allowed, and defendant required (1) to specify the claims which would be relied on to sustain its charge of infringement; (2) to point out what it deemed new and patentable in each of the claims of each of the patents in suit; (3) to • designate which of the processes used by defendant was charged to infringe, and the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Brown v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Allred v. GravesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Activated Sludge v. Sanitary Dist. of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1946
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Skelly Oil Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1926
- Beacon Folding MacH. Co. v. Rotary MacH. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927
- Standard Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.