Foundry Equipment Co. v. Carl-Mayer Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
JONES, Chief Judge.
This is a patent infringement action.
Plaintiff objects to defendants’ Interrogatories 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13?
Interrogatories 7, 9 and 13 request the production of certain documents and letters. • This court has consistently ' held that documents arid letter-s cannot be produced by the procedure provided in Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. Linko v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 615; Britting v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 536.
Interrogatory No. 1 requests certain information relating to conception and disclosure of a patent in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Linko v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1949
3Cited by2 opinions
- Republic of China v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1956
- Lee v. Electric Products Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1963