Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Speedrack Inc. v. Baybarz

District Court, E.D. California

Decided October 4, 1968No. Civ. No. S-558PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MacBRIDE, Chief Judge.

This is a motion for an order to compel discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, copying, or photographing pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has sued for patent infringement and now seeks to discover items in the defendants’ custody or control.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that it has a substantial business manufacturing and selling storage racks embodying its inventions, for which it has been issued Patents No. 2,932,368 (hereinafter Patent A) and No. 3,102,641 (hereinafter Patent B). The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schlagenhauf v. HolderSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Consolidated Rendering Co. v. VermontSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  4. United States v. American Optical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
  5. Fastener Corp. v. Spotnails, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1967

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  2. Geophysical Systems Corp. v. Raytheon Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1987
  3. Jackson v. Kennecott Copper CorporationUtah Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Baine v. General Motors Corp.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1991
  5. Jackson v. Kennecott Copper CorporationUtah Supreme Court · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API