Legal Opinion · Dissent

Frilette v. Kimberlin

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided December 16, 1974No. Nos. 73-1622, 73-1635 and 73-1695Published

1DissentVan Dusen, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority that 35 U.S.C. § 24, as worded in 1952, limits the ancillary jurisdiction of the district courts “to the issuance of subpoenas as permitted by pri- or practice.” This holding is specifically stated by the majority at page 212:

“We hold that 35 U.S.C. § 24 in referring to ‘provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the attendance of witnesses and to the production of documents’ refers to the' *213matters encompassed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a), (b), (c), (d)(2), (e) and (f)

The majority opinion concedes at page 211 that we are…

2Cases cited10 opinions

Malat v. RiddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
Henry Hughes v. Local No. 11 of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Afl-CioCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
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
Dorothy Hennesey, Doing Business as Hennesey & Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Great American Life Underwriters, Inc., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.