Legal Opinion
Dill Mfg. Co. v. Acme Air Appliance Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided November 27, 1941No. 2283PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
The defendant bases its motion under the provisions of Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and requests a more definite statement of the complaint and for a bill of particulars in this action which is for a patent infringement. The particulars with respect to which plaintiff is requested to make the complaint more definite are, as follows:
“1. Specify which of the three (3) claims of United States Letters Patent, No. 2,048,843, are charged to have been infringed by defendant, and which claim or claims will be relied…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. Union Tool Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1921
3Cited by4 opinions
- Robert Ruiz v. Hamburg-American Line, a Corporation, Defendant-Third-Party v. Jones Stevedoring Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- Mahler v. DrakeDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1967
- Buxton, Inc. v. GardnerDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1942
- Robert Ruiz v. Hamburg-American Line, a Corporation, Defendant-Third-Party v. Jones Stevedoring Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973