Buxton, Inc. v. Gardner
District Court, E.D. Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
MOORE, District Judge.
This is an action for patent infringement and the issue presented arises from a motion by defendant for a more definite statement or bill of particulars under Rule 12(e) of Federal Rules of Civil Pro*352cedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Defendant has asked for five particulars, three of which have been answered voluntarily by plaintiff. Numbers 4 and 5, however, are objected to by the plaintiff. They are:
4. Define precisely what plaintiff asserts or claims is new and patentable in each of the claims of the patents in suit charged to be infringed.
5. Designate…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. ByrnesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Wilson v. Union Tool Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1921
- Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1938
- Midwest Mfg. Co. v. Filter Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1935
- Dill Mfg. Co. v. Acme Air Appliance Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bowles v. KarpDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1944