Legal Opinion

General Industries Co. v. Birmingham Sound Reproducers, Ltd.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided May 31, 1961No. 60-C-867PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARTELS, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., for an order striking certain interrogatories served by the defendants.

This is an action for alleged infringement of certain patents dealing with plural speed phonograph turntable drive mechanisms. Defendants’ answer denies the infringement and by way of affirmative defense asserts invalidity of the patents. However, they do not include as a defense misuse or “unclean hands”. The three remaining interrogatories now before the Court seek the following information: (1) whether plaintiff ever granted…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
  2. Stearns v. Tinker & RasorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  3. Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1956
  4. Hardinge Company, Inc. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories v. I. D. Russell Co. LaboratoriesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1953

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. The Barr Rubber Products Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. The Sun Rubber Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross and Wonder Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
  2. Karl E. Stiegele and Speidel Corporation v. J. M. Moore Import-Export Co., Inc., Moore Products Corporation and Joseph Mitchell MooreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
  3. Richards v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  4. Holley v. OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATIONDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1964
  5. Lee v. Electric Products Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API