Legal Opinion
Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Big Dutchman, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided June 30, 1966No. Civ. A. 4853PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON MOTION FOR PRODUCTION
FOX, District Judge.
The defendant, Big Dutchman, Inc., has made a motion In this patent infringement action, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the production of correspondence between the plaintiff and its attorneys concerning United States Patent Application Serial No. 59,312 and United States Patent Application Serial No. 307,274. The defendant claims the correspondence is necessary in order to enable it to properly prepare its defense.
In general, the correspondence is concerned with the preparation of the patent applications,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
- American Cyanamid Company v. Hercules Powder CompanyDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1962
- Ellis-Foster Company v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1958
- Paper Converting MacHine Co. v. FMC CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1963
- McCormick v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Haines v. Liggett Group Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1977
- Burlington Industries v. Exxon Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1974
- Klitzman, Klitzman and Gallagher v. Robert J. Krut, Vernon Holmes, W. Hunt Dumont, Michael MilnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.