Legal Opinion
Natta v. Hogan
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided March 21, 1968No. Nos. 9694, 9695PublishedCited by 122 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
The issues here presented relate to discovery and production of documents under Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P., in connection with interference proceedings in the Patent Office. The district court granted limited discovery and the contesting groups have each appealed.
On one side are Natta, Pino, and Mazzanti, and their assignee Montecatini. This group will be referred to as Montecatini. On the other, are Hogan, Banks, and their assignee Phillips Petroleum Company. This group will be referred to as Phillips.
The interference proceedings present the question of which party has…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Perlman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by122 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air ForceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
- Garner v. WolfinbargerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
117 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.