Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/388/215/160630/
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 17:40:09
Document Index: 176678828

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1292', '§ 24', '§ 104', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24']

In Re Natta et al., Movant in the United States Patent Office Before the Examiner of Interferences, Interference No. 89634.hogan et al. v. Zletz v. Baxter et al. v. Natta et al. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Appellant, 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1968 › In Re Natta et al., Movant in the United States Patent Office Before the Examiner of Interferences,...
In Re Natta et al., Movant in the United States Patent Office Before the Examiner of Interferences, Interference No. 89634.hogan et al. v. Zletz v. Baxter et al. v. Natta et al. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Appellant, 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968) Argued November 2, 1967
Appellant, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from an order of the District Court directing it to produce certain documents to appellee, Natta (hereinafter called Montecatini) movant below. The order granted Montecatini discovery of the books and records of duPont pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24 in aid of Montecatini's case in an interference proceeding pending before the Board of Patent Interferences of the United States Patent Office. In re Natta, 259 F. Supp. 922 (D.C.Del.1966); In re Natta, 264 F. Supp. 734 (D.C.Del. 1967).
After all the junior parties presented their cases, Montecatini was assigned the period March 29, 1966-July 29, 1966 in which to complete its testimony. By virtue of 35 U.S.C. §§ 104 and 119, Montecatini's proofs must be limited to rebutting attempts by the junior parties to establish an earlier date. Montecatini may not establish for itself a date earlier than June 8, 1954, the date of its Italian patent application. Monaco v. Hoffman, 189 F. Supp. 474 (D.D.C. 1960), affirmed 110 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 293 F.2d 883 (1961). In an effort to obtain the necessary proofs, Montecatini initiated a Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., motion below on June 30, 1966 as one of three companion ancillary proceedings it brought against each of the junior parties to the interference. The motion was based on 35 U.S.C. § 24 and was served on duPont's counsel of record in the interference, Dr. Roger A. Hines, who had agreed in advance to accept service.
"We agree with Korman v. Shull, W.D. Mich., 1960, 184 F. Supp. 928, 934, that Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.Proc. is among the rules referred to in 35 U.S.C. § 24, when the production of documents is required for the examination or crossexamination of a witness." Gladrow v. Weisz, supra, 354 F.2d at page 468.
Korman v. Shull, 184 F. Supp. 928 (W. D.Mich.1960), appeal dismissed 310 F.2d 373 (6 Cir. 1962), cited with approval by the Court in Gladrow clearly recognizes the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"Under § 24, which I have just quoted, the applicable rules of civil procedure must be considered in determining the questions before the court relative to the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Rules 26, 30, 34 and 45, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. relating to the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents are applicable in the present proceeding." Korman v. Shull, supra, 184 F. Supp. at page 931.
Appellant urges that Korman v. Nobile, 133 U.S.P.Q. 178 (W.D. Mich. 1962), decided by the same judge who wrote the opinion in Shull, qualifies Shull by expressly holding that discovery is not available. Appellant relies on the following language which refers to 35 U. S.C. § 24:
"Plaintiff meets F.R. 34's requirement of `good cause' for production when it shows both the relevance of the documents — all pertain to patents in suit — and the information contained in them is, by their nature, within the exclusive knowledge of the defendants. Their contents were withheld on the depositions of the writers and will remain unknown to plaintiff unless produced." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Radio Corp of America, 121 F. Supp. 792, 795 (D.C.Del.1954).