Legal Opinion
Frilette v. Kimberlin
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided May 15, 1973No. Misc. 83PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION and ORDER
CALEB M. WRIGHT, Chief Judge.
This is a motion to compel discovery under Rule 37 F.R.Civ.P. filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24 authorizing discovery in Patent Office interferences matters by resort to the Federal Courts and the utilization of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The interference is between the Kimberlin U. S. reissue Patent No. Re. 26,-188, filed August 24, 1962 claiming a priority date of the original application filed February 5, 1957, and the Frilette application No. 763,433 filed September 26, 1968. The real parties in interest are, Mobil Oil Corporation…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- 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
- Korman v. NobileDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1960
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1968
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Foster Wheeler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Foster Wheeler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Frilette v. KimberlinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Vincent J. Frilette, and Paul R. Weisz, Movants-Appellants v. Charles N. Kimberlin, Jr., and Elroy M. Gladrow, Opposers. Richard J. Duffy v. Gerald Barnes, Joseph R. Preziosi, William F. McGuinness James B. Duke,richard A. Craig, Charles C. Faroni, Richard Baubles and Donald Sager,defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Barnes v. DuffyDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1974
- Frilette v. KimberlinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974