BAKELITE CORPORATION v. LUBRI-ZOL DEVELOPMENT CORP.

No. 107.

36 F.Supp. 105 (1940)

BAKELITE CORPORATION et al. v. LUBRI-ZOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

District Court, D. Delaware.

December 20, 1940.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Maxwell Barus (of Fish, Richardson & Neave) and F. W. Dodson, both of New York City, and Herbert L. Cohen, of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.

John F. Oberlin and O. C. Limbach (of Oberlin, Limbach & Day), and David K. Ford, all of Cleveland, Ohio, and Hugh M. Morris and S. Samuel Arsht, both of Wilmington, Del., for defendant.


NIELDS, District Judge.

Defendant's motion for bill of particulars.

Particulars 1, 2 and 3. These are in the nature of interrogatories seeking proof of infringement of the patents in suit. Such evidentiary facts should be sought by discovery after issue joined and not by a motion for particulars. However, plaintiffs have voluntarily filed items 1(a) to (e) inclusive, 2(a), (c), (d) and 3(b) and (c). No answer is given to items 2(b) and 3(a). Each asks...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases