Legal Opinion

Koehring Co. v. Foote Co.

District Court, W.D. New York

Decided June 11, 1927PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAZEL, District Judge.

The supplementary interrogatories propounded by order of the court, under date of February 8th, on separate papers, resulted from defendant’s request to be apprised of the particular claims upon which plaintiff would rely at the hearing. They were intended to relate to a description of defendant’s machine to enable plaintiff to state definitely what claims of the patent in suit were infringed. On motion, the supplementary interrogatories were stricken out on defendant’s contention that treble damages, recovery of a penalty, were demanded, and the rule of Healthometer Co.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brady v. DalySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
  3. Grasselli Chemical Co. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1920
  4. Beacon Folding MacH. Co. v. Rotary MacH. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927
  5. Wright v. Dodge Bros.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1924

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Activated Sludge v. Sanitary Dist. of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1946
  2. Boysell Co. v. Colonial Coverlet Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1939
  3. Frankel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API