Legal Opinion

Standard Oil Co. v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation

District Court, S.D. Illinois

Decided December 2, 1925No. 306PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Brown v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  5. Interstate Commerce Commission v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1904

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Allred v. GravesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Activated Sludge v. Sanitary Dist. of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1946
  3. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Skelly Oil Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1926
  4. Beacon Folding MacH. Co. v. Rotary MacH. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927
  5. Standard Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API