Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. Rainbow Light, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
I have allowed nearly all of the interrogatories proposed by the complainant. I suspect that they involve unnecessary reduplication, but it is difficult for me to determine that in a meehanieo-ehemical patent, and I had better err on the right side, as thus no harm can be done if the questions are proper in themselves. I would suggest, however, that counsel confer and see if as a result some, if not many, of the interrogatories cannot be withdrawn without prejudicing complainant’s right to secure pertinent information in order to prepare for trial.
The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- Grasselli Chemical Co. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1920
- McLeod Tire Corp. v. B. F. Goodrich Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1920
- Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. E. Machlett & SonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1926
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lever Bros. Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1941
- Glick v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1950
- Ray v. Allied Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Zolla v. Grand Rapids Store Equipment CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
- Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Moos Fur Dyeing Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.