Legal Opinion
Sperry Rand Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided July 29, 1968No. Misc. No. 45PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LAYTON, District Judge.
On June 4, 1968, this Court directed International Business Machines Corporation (I.B.M.), the Senior Party in Patent Interference No. 93,544, to produce certain categories of documents requested by Sperry Rand Corporation (Sperry), the Junior Party in the Interference, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 35 U.S.C. § 24. Production was ordered subject to the following proviso:
“IBM will be required to produce the documents in all of the categories listed except for those which it deems protected by the privilege. As to those documents,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
- Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- American Cyanamid Company v. Hercules Powder CompanyDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1962
- International Business Machines Corp. v. Sperry Rand Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1977
- In re Grand Jury SubpoenaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- 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 Natta, MovantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1985
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.