Case Name: ROLL-DIE & MOLD DECORATORS, INC., and R. C. Gutknecht, Appellants, v. W. J. VOIT RUBBER CORP., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-12-21
Citations: 387 F.2d 306
Docket Number: No. 21592
Parties: ROLL-DIE & MOLD DECORATORS, INC., and R. C. Gutknecht, Appellants, v. W. J. VOIT RUBBER CORP., Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 387
Pages: 306–306

Head Matter:
ROLL-DIE & MOLD DECORATORS, INC., and R. C. Gutknecht, Appellants, v. W. J. VOIT RUBBER CORP., Appellee.
No. 21592.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1968.
J. Herman Yount, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio (argued), of counsel: Yount, Raney, Flynn & Tarolli, Cleveland, Ohio, Collins Mason, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Patrick James Kirby, Pasadena, Cal. (argued), Lome J. Brown and Holmes, Ross, Woodson, Millard & Ryburn, Pasadena, Cal., of counsel: Richard E. Lyon, Lyon & Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS, District Judge.
Hon. Ray McNichols, United States District Judge, Boise, Idaho, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We find no merit in appellants' objections relative to jurisdiction, venue, or stay of the trial date, pending Patent Office action. On each of those issues we affirm.
The summary judgment granted below is reversed, upon the ground the record discloses there exist genuine issues of material fact.
In view of this opinion, it is suggested that whatever district court judge tries the contested case, he should reconsider and re-examine the propriety and necessity of the continuation of preliminary injunctive relief.