Legal Opinion
Vogel v. Jones
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided May 17, 1971No. Nos. 19374, 19375PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ADAMS, Circuit Judge.
This case presents another chapter in the continuing saga regarding the authority of federal district courts to order discovery in patent interference proceedings pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24.1
Vogel, a Minnesota resident, and Jones, a British subject and resident, are the two named parties to Patent Office Interferences No. 96,167 and No. 96,500. The real parties in interest, however, are their respective assignees, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”), a Delaware Corporation whose principal office is at Saint Paul, Minnesota, and Imperial…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Natta v. HoganCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1968
- In Re Natta, Movant in the United States Patent Office Before the Examiner of Interferences, Interference No. 89634. Hogan v. Zletz v. Baxter v. Natta E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Giulio Natta, (Appellees in No. 16003) v. Alex Zletz and Standard Oil Company of Indiana, (Appellants in No. 16003)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
- Herward A. Vogel and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Michael Edward Benet Jones and Imperial Chemical Industries LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Vogel v. JonesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1972
- Vogel v. JonesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1972
- Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.