Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Big Dutchman, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
FOX, District Judge.
This is a motion for reconsideration of defendant’s motion for production of documents under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is the contention of the defendant that the documents are necessary to determine whether the plaintiff failed through error as required by 35 U.S.C. § 251, to obtain the new reissue claims in its original patent. Error, or as the courts refer to it, inadvertence, accident or mistake, must have occurred in order for the reissue patent to be valid.
In a prior decision in this case, this court ruled…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Magida ex rel. Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Continental Can Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- In Re Associated Gas & Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944
- Boyd v. WrisleyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1964
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harrison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Sicpa North America v. Donaldson EnterprisesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
- Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. BlondisDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1976
- Galland-Henning Mfg. Co. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1970
- Harrison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975